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

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

OT-P: President Obama Booed After Thanking Boston For Kevin Youkilis « CBS Boston

Political loyalties aren’t as strong as team loyalties.


NOTE: As I discussed in the Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign thread, in the redesign I’m making non-baseball content opt-in. Until the redesign is done (about two months), I’m designating one thread each month (similar to the basketball and soccer threads) as Off-Topic Politics (OT-P) and will restrict off-topic political conversations to that thread. Off-topic political comments which appear in other threads will be deleted. Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.

Jim Furtado Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:52 AM | 1396 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

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 10 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > 
   901. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4169445)
I read somewhere that Obama was reading SCOTUSBlog yesterday morning and they had something like 800,000 live viewers at the time of the announcement. They must be pretty psyched.

Brian Lerher had Amy Howe on this morning, and toward the end of the segment, they discussed yesterday's craziness.
   902. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4169447)
Good day for democracy in that light.


Good day for expertise, really. Bloomberg and AP were fighting over who had it first, but SCOTUSblog had analysis as to the WHY of the IM being upheld within a minute of the first headline. Which is nice, because being a pundit on TV is basically being paid to be a blowhard dilettante who has no real expertise or even strong layperson knowledge on any topic but the ability to make ######## shine and thus get credited over the people who actually know something about the topic. That cable news by design makes nuance impossible, and that producers only bring on people they know will stick to their preassigned position only makes things worse.
   903. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4169449)
Of course this whole idea of "free riders" is nothing more than a transparent attempt to imply that there's something inherently immoral about a system that allocates health care on the basis of need rather than the ability to pay. It's a loaded term that seems to be the Viagra of the Tea Party, but there's no reason for anyone else to take it seriously.

WTF are you talking about, Andy? It's the supporters of Obamacare who brought up free riding.


As I've said, there are "free riding" cases to fit every POV. The insurance mandate of the ACA aims at one type of "free riding", and for the past 100+ years conservatives and libertarians have been whining about another. The only difference is that taxing the "free riders" under the insurance mandate would result in more money to treat everybody, whereas eliminating the "free riders" that you and Ray always whine about leaves us with current form of emergency room "free riding" still in place.
   904. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4169452)
(some good ideas in this year's Ideas List: lotteries for college admissions, sell the pill over the counter...lots more, but this thread probably shouldn't go on for 12300 posts)


Why not? Jim has given it the official OT-P* seal of approval. Keep it vaguely civil and you're golden, just like the NBA and soccer threads. It's like the Longthreaders don't realize that they've actually won.

*Yeah, you know me.
   905. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4169453)
This is particularly disingenuous on Ginsburg's part, because Ginsburg rejects Lopez and Morrison. She has no problem piling inference upon inference.


That's not what disingenuous means. Disingenuous is saying one thing in one case and then going ahead and doing it yourself. Ginsburg is calling out the other side for violating their own position, not advancing that past held position as her own. It would only be disingenuous if she herself is advancing that notion despite a past stance.

But way to pick out one line in a large quote while failing to engage with the actual topic of the post. /golfclap

edited for clarity.
   906. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4169455)
*Yeah, you know me.

Weak :>

But here's the list (clickable links to explanations behind the individual ideas):

The Right to Be Forgotten
Boot Camp for Teachers
Bankers Should Be Boring
Sell the Pill Over the Counter
Speakers of the House Shouldn't Be President
Make Cars Super Light
The End of the Checkbook
Boot the Extra Point
The Islamists are Our Friends
The Cost of Modern Revolution
Lotteries for College Admissions
Charge for Your Ideas
Ban Gasoline
Actually, Fossil Fuels Are Here to Stay
Hire Introverts
Violence Doesn't Work Most of the Time
Fix Law Schools
Less Work, More Jobs
Abolish the Secret Ballot
Don't Treat the Sick If They're Poor
Smartphone-Free Socializing
Knowledge of the Future Is Messing With the Present
End the Dunk Tank
Let's Cool It With the Big Ideas
   907. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4169456)
I am not commenting on whether Obamacare is moral or immoral. I'm commenting that the people favoring it should at least be honest as to what it is.

The ACA is an attempt to bring previously uninsured people out of the emergency rooms and into the mainstream of the health care system, in order to remove the Sword of Damocles from hovering over their heads. That's pretty much the bottom line for ever ACA supporter I've ever met.

----------------------------------------------------

seems to be the Viagra of the Tea Party

Ummm, Andy: I've been to Tea Party rallies. Viagra is the Viagra of the Tea Party.


Maybe so, but "free riders" rhetoric sure as hell ain't the saltpeter.
   908. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4169459)
That's pretty much the bottom line for ever ACA supporter I've ever met.


Well, not the sole bottom line. For example, part of my bottom line is that it advances the cause of communism and the end of the 2nd Amendment. But certainly a very big part of the bottom line.
   909. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4169461)
Weak :>


It was awesome, and you know it.
   910. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4169462)
The ACA is an attempt to bring previously uninsured people out of the emergency rooms and into the mainstream of the health care system, in order to remove the Sword of Damocles from hovering over their heads. That's pretty much the bottom line for ever ACA supporter I've ever met.


Where "previously uninsured people" includes a boat load of free riders who can't afford to pay and indeed won't be paying.

If they could afford to pay, they wouldn't be exempt per the Act.

But somehow the "young free riders" Posner spoke of are doing something horrible to the system, while the free riders who can't afford to pay aren't - and not only aren't they but we're going to increase the burden they are providing to the system.
   911. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4169463)
The ACA is an attempt to bring previously uninsured people out of the emergency rooms and into the mainstream of the health care system, in order to remove the Sword of Damocles from hovering over their heads. That's pretty much the bottom line for ever ACA supporter I've ever met.


Hey now, it is also an attempt to bend the cost curve, thus making health care cheaper than it would be without the law. I think both are good things and I think linked together, due to a bunch of factors (like the fact that the emergency room free rider issues is very inefficient and preventative care is very efficient).

   912. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4169464)
Well, not the sole bottom line. For example, part of my bottom line is that it advances the cause of communism and the end of the 2nd Amendment. But certainly a very big part of the bottom line.


RDF.
   913. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4169466)
BTW the investor class is so upset about the Obamacare ruling that the Dow is currently up over 200 points for the day.
   914. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4169467)
Where "previously uninsured people" includes a boat load of free riders who can't afford to pay and indeed won't be paying.


Yes, Ray. We're all planning to send them to your house, to take your healthcare, at gunpoint.
   915. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4169468)
ABC News digs up video of Mitt Romney admiting in a January 2008 Republican presidential debate that the individual health care mandate he passed in Massachusetts was indeed a tax.

CHARLIE GIBSON: Governor, you imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts...

MITT ROMNEY: Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way; don't be free-riders and pass on the cost to your health care to everybody else...


Mitt Romney is hardly the tea party wing of the conservative movement, but he definitely ran to the right of McCain during his 2008 campaign and got a greater share of conservative votes in the early primaries if the exit polling is even remotely accurate. Free riding is very much a bugaboo in general, it upsets most people's sense of fairness in that one group is getting a free lunch or undeserved benefits.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/06/29/flashback_of_the_day.html
   916. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4169469)
BTW the investor class is so upset about the Obamacare ruling that the Dow is currently up over 200 points for the day.


Naturally. The economy was only being held back by regulatory uncertainty ya know. Now they're not uncertain, they can totally go back to trying to make money and stuff.
   917. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4169470)
The ACA is an attempt to bring previously uninsured people out of the emergency rooms and into the mainstream of the health care system, in order to remove the Sword of Damocles from hovering over their heads. That's pretty much the bottom line for ever ACA supporter I've ever met.

Hey now, it is also an attempt to bend the cost curve, thus making health care cheaper than it would be without the law. I think both are good things and I think linked together, due to a bunch of factors (like the fact that the emergency room free rider issues is very inefficient and preventative care is very efficient).


No argument with any of that, though in terms of what energizes us I think that the point I raised is primary.
   918. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4169471)
BTW the investor class is so upset about the Obamacare ruling that the Dow is currently up over 200 points for the day.
Yes, but it's really hot today, so therefore the ruling caused global warming and must be reversed for the good of the planet.
   919. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4169472)
But somehow the "young free riders" Posner spoke of are doing something horrible to the system, while the free riders who can't afford to pay aren't - and not only aren't they but we're going to increase the burden they are providing to the system.

Yes, how strange an idea it is that people who can't pay might be more open to sympathy than those who won't pay. I realize that this must seem like a truly bizarro concept.
   920. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4169473)
Yes, but it's really hot today, so therefore the ruling caused global warming and must be reversed for the good of the planet.


Only in those states that actually are really hot! Severability!
   921. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4169474)
Yes, but it's really hot today, so therefore the ruling caused global warming and must be reversed for the good of the planet.


Yes, and also the Yankees lost last night, which would never have happened but for the ruling.

The Dow being currently up for the day has nothing to do with anything.
   922. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4169478)
Uh, that is a political preference.

No, they're both legal principles -- (1) that the role of a judge is to consider the balance of powers among the branches of the federal government; and (2) that acts of Congress shouldn't be dubbed unconsitutional if there's a way not to. Neither depends on the political content of the act being considered.
   923. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4169479)
Yes, how strange a concept it is that people who can't pay might be more open to sympathy than those who won't pay. I realize that this must seem like a truly bizarro concept.


Again you miss the point. The "truly bizarro concept" is pretending you're trying to reduce free loading when actually you're increasing the free loading of scores of free loaders.
   924. Lassus Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4169482)
The Dow being currently up for the day has nothing to do with anything.

As they say.
   925. zenbitz Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4169485)
No, it's not. The "framing device," actually, is painting inaction as action.


In the immortal words of Getty Lee: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
   926. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4169488)
Well, not the sole bottom line. For example, part of my bottom line is that it advances the cause of communism and the end of the 2nd Amendment. But certainly a very big part of the bottom line.

Here, here!
   927. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4169490)
In the immortal words of Getty Lee: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
But what if you don't choose not to decide, but just don't decide?
   928. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4169493)
Again you miss the point. The "truly bizarro concept" is pretending you're trying to reduce free loading when actually you're increasing the free loading of scores of free loaders.


Is giving people insurance (free loading) so they can get regular care including preventative care a worse drain on society than not giving them the regular care and reducing their economic output and having them inefficiently using resources (via Emergency rooms and such)?

If you are going to make an economic argument one is better or worse I would like to hear it. Personally I suspect it is much better (economically) to give them the insurance, but I could be wrong.

EDIT: The reason I ask, is because typically when free loading is used as a pejorative it is because of either the moral or the economic element. In this case if it is the economic I am interested in why you think that. It is is moral I would like to hear about that as well.
   929. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4169494)
If you are going to make an economic argument one is better or worse I would like to hear it. Personally I suspect it is much better (economically) to give them the insurance, but I could be wrong.


Only if we make them buy broccoli.
   930. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4169498)
But what if you don't choose not to decide, but just don't decide?


Indecision as decision?
   931. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4169499)
Yes, how strange a concept it is that people who can't pay might be more open to sympathy than those who won't pay. I realize that this must seem like a truly bizarro concept.

Again you miss the point. The "truly bizarro concept" is pretending you're trying to reduce free loading when actually you're increasing the free loading of scores of free loaders.


Again, the point of the ACA is to bring the uninsured into the system, and the point of the mandate is to make sure that there's enough money to pay for it. The "free loader" rhetoric on both sides is just that, though as I said, it certainly would apply more to those who refuse to pay than to those who can't.
   932. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4169501)
Mitt Romney is hardly the tea party wing of the conservative movement, but he definitely ran to the right of McCain during his 2008 campaign and got a greater share of conservative votes in the early primaries if the exit polling is even remotely accurate.


It's not a big deal that he ran to the right of McCain, McCain essentially ran down the middle (of the GOP) in 2008, which basically meant that everyone was running to his right (except Paul who was simultaneously running to the far right and left... without contradicting himself which says something about the uselessness of labels or the magic of Paul or both...)

what's remarkable is that Romney, who as an elected official governed center right, in 2008 and 2012 moved or tried to move right of people who really ARE on the right....

and he's somehow gotten away with it. (so far)

   933. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4169502)
Why are free riders a problem under the Romneycare/Obamacare regulate-and-subsidize framework? It's not for moral reasons. It's because, if you provide via subsidy and regulation that all people can purchase affordable health insurance, one way for an individual to beat the system is to do is to wait until he's sick and only then purchase insurance. That is the precise form of free riding that must be taxed or mandated against in order for the regulate-and-subsidize framework to function. Otherwise the system would risk collapse. So, if Congress decides that the way it's going to regulate the interstate commerce of health care is through the Romneycare template brought to a national level, it is necessary to have some sort of mechanism to prevent this particular kind of free riding, whether by a tax or by a mandate.
   934. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4169503)
In the immortal words of Getty Lee: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".


Even if you've chosen not to decide, you still haven't acted, any more than I've "acted" when I choose not to attend the theater. Mental steps.
   935. zenbitz Posted: June 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4169504)
This is the "broccoli" argument the opposition has forwarded: could the government make everyone buy broccoli, or pay a fine if they don't? It's a slippery-slope argument that legal types like, but it doesn't really apply to practical governance.


At the risk of beverage donation -- this is exactly what happened on the state level with smoking laws -> trans fats laws. I think, in general, these laws are stupid at both the federal and state level. Whether or not they are constitutional is more or less immaterial (to me; obviously lawyers care). I don't think it's a reasonable reading of the Constitution (caveat: I've never read it) to say "The rights to create stupid laws are delagated to the States and are not a province of the Federal Government".

Someone posed an interesting question as to "what is the limit of Federal power over the States?". Well, practically - there is no limit. The Federal Government has the money and guns to exert it's will over the States as it chooses. It, on a less autocratic level, can have the the preponderance of "The Will of The People" - in that 49 states can oppress the will of 1.

Now -- Legally -- there are checks and limits to this Federal power. But the governance of this power is determined by the actions of the 3 branches of government, and Congress is a Federal entity, even though it is made of States' representatives. They can and do make decisions that limit the power of their own states. I am no lawyer and I don't really care about this. I mean, I care in the sense that the Fed can make bad laws that limit my freedom or hurt people or whatever, but the States can do this to.

I take a Utilitarian approach to the division of State/Federal power. The Libertarian argument (which is not merit-less) simply assumes that power wielders are bad, and hence balkanizing power is by definition, better. However, I think this is only a general principle and not specific at all. The smaller the entity - the easier all it's subjects are to control and suppress. Evil is an Integral Equation.

So, this is wishy washy - but I think the States should do what they do best, and the Feds should do what they do best [and check the power of the States to harm it's citizens] and similar with Civic governments as well.
   936. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4169505)
anywho, someone earlier claimed that pointing out that a candidate is a flip flopper is a useless campaign strategy- I half agree

pointing out that Romney is a flipper is not going to make a single soul switch from Romney to Obama
however, while Obama "wins" if a Romney supporter votes for him, Obama also wins if a Romney voter stays home OR votes for Gary Johnson

Right now the "base" seems all stirred up about Obamacare, Roberts, Liberal judges, the death of freedom, etc...
But Romney is the WORST possible candidate to ride that wave- all Obama has to do is run old Romney ads (from his Mass days) talk about Romneycare- air any claim they can find of Romney talking about Romneycare...

the idea would be to paid Romney as a "RINO," and maybe just maybe you either get some of the firebreathers so disillusioned they stay home, or pissed off enough to vote Johnson, either is a win for Obama.

Basically Obama has to keep poking at the Teaper wing of the "base," - if Republican discipline is going to break- that's where it's gonna break.
   937. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4169508)
Let's all remember this "inaction is action" argument the next time people here accuse the libertarians of trying to play word games.

The people involved in the hotel business in 1964 were involved in the hotel business. They weren't sitting around in their living rooms watching tv and then suddenly the government came around and told them to rent rooms to minorities.
   938. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4169509)
Teaper, teaper, teaper. Johnny, you need to get out more.
   939. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4169511)
I take a Utilitarian approach to the division of State/Federal power...

So, this is wishy washy - but I think the States should do what they do best, and the Feds should do what they do best [and check the power of the States to harm it's citizens] and similar with Civic governments as well.


I agree, and at times I think I'm the only one...

I care about efficiency, states rights/sovereignty as something divorced from efficiency has no meaning to me, the concept that "states" (i.e, NY, Texas, Calif) have "rights' separate apart and above the people therein is completely alien to me... Fortunately most of the time the people who advance "states rights" arguments are doing so in such patently bad faith it's easy to dismiss such claims on that basis.
   940. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4169512)
johnny

you keep suggesting that the tea party will revolt against romney.

this is a fantasy

yesterday's ruling was a blessing for the governor since now it has crystallized that the only way for fiscal minded folks to rid themselves of a president that they believe burns money just for fun is to get gov. romney elected. only way.

the gop is exploiting this as only my party can do

there are many paths for the president to be re-elected

the tea party sabotaging the romney campaign is not one of them and to count on it is to waste one's time
   941. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4169513)
I think the last thing that Obama wants to do is paint Romney as a moderate.

The tightrope that Obama's messaging team has to walk is painting Romney as someone who has wholly committed himself to radical Tea Party positions on important issues, while also painting him as a soulless, core-free corporate raider type who will say or do anything that wins him a profit in money or votes. So you use the Romneycare stuff to make the "without a core" argument without saying that Romney is a "Rino".

Rinos and Dinos are popular with the middle, and it's a really big risk to paint your opponent as something popular.

I also think it's incredibly unlikely that the Teapers won't turn out for the party's candidate. When establishment Republicans have won close-fought primaries with right-insurgents, and won, the base has turned out for the establishment Republican in the general. The Tea Party seems to have a strong understanding of American electoral politics - the general election is a zero-sum game, and if you don't get your candidate through in the primaries, you go with major party candidate closest to your views and start working to unseat him or her in the primary next time around.

EDIT: coke to Harvey
   942. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4169515)
When it comes to making out the case for individual mandates and denouncing "freeloaders", nobody's ever done in better than the man formerly known as Mitt Romney. I have a strong feeling we'll be seeing these clips more than a few times over the next four months. (smile) They're truly priceless.
   943. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4169516)
the point of the mandate is to make sure that there's enough money to pay for it.


My understanding that it's actually more for 1) making sure as many people as possible sign up for health care in order to 2) prevent the free-riding issue that would result in increased health insurance costs when combined with the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, and which possibly results in a "death spiral" where only the sickest people get health insurance because of the general increased cost of insuring a risk pool that's weighted towards people who have health conditions.

   944. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4169519)
I also think it's incredibly unlikely that the Teapers won't turn out for the party's candidate. When establishment Republicans have won close-fought primaries with right-insurgents, and won, the base has turned out for the establishment Republican in the general. The Tea Party seems to have a strong understanding of American electoral politics - the general election is a zero-sum game, and if you don't get your candidate through in the primaries, you go with major party candidate closest to your views and start working to unseat him or her in the primary next time around.

You're almost certainly correct about the Tea Partiers' common sense when it comes to choosing the lesser of two evils. But it'll still be fun to watch em squirm a bit when they see the former Mitt Romney preaching the virtues of mandates, and compare him to the Romney of today. They'll still get out and vote to slay the Kenyan Devil, but you have to wonder whether or not they're going to be quite as enthusiastic as they might have been without that sense of doubt as to who the real "Mitt Romney" really is.
   945. Lassus Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4169521)
you keep suggesting that the tea party will revolt against romney.
this is a fantasy


I think a "revolt" is a fantasy, but I think some sitting home instead of voting for Romney is not really as big a fantasy. I'm not sure how many folks would do so and admit the effect could be negligible. I just think it's not a completely wackdoodle concept to contemplate.
   946. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4169523)
yesterday's ruling was a blessing for the governor since now it has crystallized that the only way for fiscal minded folks to rid themselves of a president that they believe burns money just for fun is to get gov. romney elected. only way.


Many people will argue this. Every last one of them will either be ignorant or fools, or both. Look at Mitt Romney's platform. It increases debt at every single step of the program.
   947. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4169524)
the point of the mandate is to make sure that there's enough money to pay for it.

My understanding that it's actually more for 1) making sure as many people as possible sign up for health care in order to 2) prevent the free-riding issue that would result in increased health insurance costs when combined with the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, and which possibly results in a "death spiral" where only the sickest people get health insurance because of the general increased cost of insuring a risk pool that's weighted towards people who have health conditions.


What I said is just a shorthand version of what you just said. I'm not disagreeing with your longer version.
   948. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4169525)
Harv, you got the order wrong.

It should be:

yesterday's ruling was a blessing for the governor

And then:

this is a fantasy
   949. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4169526)
lassus

well, keep thinking that. barring some jarring news about the governor he can count on their support.

rickey

i am speaking to perception.

guys, i know the tea party and the gop. i know i am a nobody on the internet but you have to believe me on this one. all the suppositions i have read to date are plain garbage.

i know these people. they ain't all my cup of tea but i know them better than i know many of my relatives.

you want to know ask the question. you want flights of fancy keep listening to the wangdoodles
   950. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4169527)
When it comes to making out the case for individual mandates and denouncing "freeloaders", nobody's ever done in better than the man formerly known as Mitt Romney. I have a strong feeling we'll be seeing these clips more than a few times over the next four months. (smile) They're truly priceless.


We'll see the Romney clips about as many times as the clips showing Obama saying the mandate isn't a tax, I'd imagine.
   951. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4169529)
Harv, I don't doubt your general point about the Tea Partiers, but as Al Gore learned to his dismay in 2000, sometime it only takes a tiny percentage of handsitters in the right states to swing an election.
   952. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4169530)
Harv, there's no way Obama having his signature piece of legislation upheld hurts his reelection campaign-- I don't think it helps him a ton, but having it overturned would have been a big hit to his case that his first term was a successful one. Especially when the Repubs haven't offered anything that looks like a viable alternative.
   953. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4169531)
Teaper, teaper, teaper. Johnny, you need to get out more.

Two of the people I work with to this day call themselves Tea Part members, I call them Teapers, if I was even less polite I'd call them TeaBaggers, but that's just a gratuitous insult, anyway, you and everyone else know what wing of the GOP I'm talking about.
   954. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4169532)
Right, and if ACA had been overturned, it would also be a blessing for Romney. It's always good news for Romney!

The reality is that the vast majority of people who are horrified by the court's decision and hate ACA were already motivated to vote against Obama. This decision isn't going to change anything. I doubt it will have a profound effect on the election.
   955. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4169534)
johnny

you keep suggesting that the tea party will revolt against romney.

this is a fantasy


one of us (or may both of us) are wishcasting

   956. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4169535)
andy

my party is going to have them whipped into a frenzy permanently between now and november. ohio, wisconsin, north carolina you name it

great thing about hate. it sustains

and these folks do hate the president.

i think that is the single toughest thing for dems to accept. that you have this piece of the electorate that doesn't just disagree with the president. they hate him. want him dead. and then his head chopped off. and that fed to wild animals on live tv.

sorry but it's true

ain't no way they don't vote come november

no...........way
   957. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4169536)
#952 - Correct. As I said before people like winners and dislike losers. If ACA had been overturned Obama would look more like a loser.
   958. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4169537)
I doubt it had a profound effect on the election.

"Obama passed an unconstitutional health care bill" makes him sound pretty incompetent/power hungry. Maybe that's just me. And, like Bitter says, loserish.
   959. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4169538)
johnny

well, you have your mind made up. ain't no wishcasting here

i have the power of hate on my side

and that is a mighty powerful tool

sorry
   960. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4169540)
i think that is the single toughest thing for dems to accept. that you have this piece of the electorate that doesn't just disagree with the president. they hate him. want him dead. and then his head chopped off. and that fed to wild animals on live tv.

I agree, but you're talking about a core group that's maybe 35% of the electorate. Those people are going to vote against Obama no matter what, so they're not the issue and won't decide the election.
   961. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4169541)
formerly

who said the president was hurt?

i said the governor got help. both can be helped by yesterday

   962. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4169544)
960

now wait. folks are saying these folks will stay home. i am telling folks they won't stay home

what are you arguing?
   963. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4169545)
"Obama passed an unconstitutional health care bill" makes him sound pretty incompetent/power hungry. Maybe that's just me. And, like Bitter says, loserish.

I was talking about the actual decision. I agree that a loss could have hurt. (a loss could have helped in some ways by motivating the left, but on balance it probably would have favored Romney.)
   964. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4169546)
ain't no way they don't vote come november


But they were going to anyway.
   965. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4169547)
i think that is the single toughest thing for dems to accept. that you have this piece of the electorate that doesn't just disagree with the president. they hate him. want him dead. and then his head chopped off. and that fed to wild animals on live tv.
No, Democrats talk about this all the time, in precisely those terms. Someone somewhere called them the "BTKWB" 28% - the slightly less than 1-in-3 Americans who would approve of President Bush even if he bound, tortured, and killed Wilford Brimley on live television. This is about the same percentage of the Republican Party that admits to being at least birther-curious in polling.

What's tough for Democrats to accept (and tough for partisans of all stripes to accept) are the folks in the middle 50%, the ones who aren't strong partisans (strong Democratic partisans are a smaller population than strong Republican partisans), who don't have a clear ideological location. Most of that middle 50% are weak partisans who will vote for their party, but there are real swing voters in the middle, and all** of them seem sort of weird to strong partisans.

**All except for the miniscule percentage of non-partisan ideologues. But there's only about 10,000 of them, so we can safely pretend they don't exist for analysis of voting behavior.
   966. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4169548)
this is why these threads become tedious. folks are reading things i don't believe i wrote or argue things i am not arguing

i am not arguing anything

i am sharing facts. i am immersed in the gop and elements of the tea party. to tell me i don't know what i see and hear every is at minimum odd
   967. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4169549)
We'll see the Romney clips about as many times as the clips showing Obama saying the mandate isn't a tax, I'd imagine.

The only problem with that comparison is that while the Romney clips show Romney flatly contradicting himself, those Obama clips would be contradicting the justification of the ACA issued by John Roberts. Obama's not only consistently spoken in favor of the mandate since he first introduced the ACA, but he (and Congress) put the mandate into law. Very little inconsistency there.

Whereas Romney opposes the mandate now, but he both championed and signed into law an identical mandate for his own state.
   968. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4169552)
matt

middle 50%? i think that number is much smaller. 20% tops. at least nowadays

and i could be persuaded that its lower than 20
   969. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4169553)
We'll see the Romney clips about as many times as the clips showing Obama saying the mandate isn't a tax, I'd imagine.


It works like this:

A demo getting painted as a tax and spend liberal? That's SOP whether he is or not, showing clips of Obama arguably lying about taxes? That has little impact since the people who care most about taxes are voting against him anyway and assumed he was lying before the clips aired.

A Repub getting pained as tax and spend and lying about it? Well that's harder to figure- its hurts in a GOP primary for sure- but Mitt's gotten past that- in a general- maybe some true believers tune out...

True independents (and by that I mean people in the middle, not the people who claim to be Indy but are hard right or left ideologues)- if this just turns into ### for tat mudslinging we may see them simply tune out- or simply vote the unemployment numbers irrespective of what either campaign says or does.
   970. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4169554)
Two of the people I work with to this day call themselves Tea Part members, I call them Teapers, if I was even less polite I'd call them TeaBaggers, but that's just a gratuitous insult, anyway, you and everyone else know what wing of the GOP I'm talking about.


My quip was not in regard to the name, but was in regard to you constantly obsessing over these people here. Am I wrong (perhaps I am as I don't pay much attention to them) that they are a relatively small subset of the populus, and that they're basically extremist right wingers who are essentially irrelevant to anything as there's no way in hell they're voting for Obama no matter what happens? It's not like we're talking about swing voters here. Is there a chance they will _not_ vote for Romney, and will vote for some fringe third party candidate instead? I really can't see that, but, again, perhaps I'm wrong.

At least true libertarians would vote for a third party candidate (I voted for Bob Barr last time) or would vote for either of the D and R candidates depending on who has the power in the legislative branch.
   971. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4169555)
now wait. folks are saying these folks will stay home. i am telling folks they won't stay home

Fair enough. I agree that the vast, vast majority of that group will vote against Obama no matter what. That said, I think it's likely that there are some lower information voters outside that core group who are conservative but might not be motivated to vote for Romney because he's not conservative enough, not a man of the people, or whatever.
   972. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4169556)
i said the governor got help. both can be helped by yesterday


Not to be argumentative, but elections are zero sum, both sides can not be helped.
   973. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4169557)
and folks here are way wrong if they think the folks who hate the president were all gop voters previously

look at west virginia which is a dem leaning state but have strong animus toward the president

you have folks of all stripes who got their hackles up at this president taking office

   974. zenbitz Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4169558)
In the immortal words of Getty Lee: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".


But what if you don't choose not to decide, but just don't decide?


It's recursive, David.
   975. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4169559)
andy

my party is going to have them whipped into a frenzy permanently between now and november. ohio, wisconsin, north carolina you name it

great thing about hate. it sustains

and these folks do hate the president.

i think that is the single toughest thing for dems to accept. that you have this piece of the electorate that doesn't just disagree with the president. they hate him. want him dead. and then his head chopped off. and that fed to wild animals on live tv.

sorry but it's true

ain't no way they don't vote come november

no...........way


Harv,

I agree with what you're saying as a general point, and I have no problem accepting it. I'd only add that even the slightest bit of wavering by the tiniest fraction of Obama haters (your term) can help tilt a swing state.
   976. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4169561)
i said the governor got help. both can be helped by yesterday.

It might help him on the fringes, but that's way offset by Obama having a better case to make to people in the middle.

===

(a loss could have helped in some ways by motivating the left, but on balance it probably would have favored Romney.)

The only thing, IMO, that can help Obama on the far left is getting the Occupy people to turn out for the dems. And that's not happening over the health care bill. FWIW/SSS/twitter might be useless: I saw a lot of victory tweets from the pragmatic lefties I follow yesterday, but not a single mention of ACA from any of the Occupy feeds I subscribe to.
   977. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4169563)
and folks here are way wrong if they think the folks who hate the president were all gop voters previously

look at west virginia which is a dem leaning state but have strong animus toward the president

you have folks of all stripes who got their hackles up at this president taking office


Again, true as a general point, but West Virginia hasn't voted for a Dem since Clinton in 1996. They'll still vote for the Dems on the state and local levels but when it comes to presidents it's not just Obama who makes them vote red.
   978. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4169565)
bitter

bah. campaigns can exploit a topic to their advantage and have since the days of the country's founding

i will end this here because i know this argument, consider it hokum and we are not going to convince each other of anything
   979. spike Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4169567)
Of course the Tea Party types aren't going to change their mind - but having convenient Romney quotes like this:

“[W]e established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance... Using tax penalties, as we did … encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

help give the lie to the "Obama is outside the mainstream" type of campaign attacks. You can hardly run an ad criticizing this law when you own nominee is on the record as supporting its core principles. The continued discussion of it in the news damages Romney's credibility and reinforces the notion of him as a flip-flopper. It's not going to change the outcome in Texas or California, but it probably doesn't hurt with swing voters in the states that ARE going to matter.
   980. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4169568)
HW I agree both campaigns will try to exploit it. I agree it might influence to a very limited degree the various portions of the voters. But from a logical standpoint it really is zero sum, in net it really can only help one side or the other.

But sure let's move on.
   981. zenbitz Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4169569)
Ray, You're a robot -- you should know this. You cannot allow a a human to come to harm "THROUGH ACTION OR INACTION" (Asimov's 1st Law). It's the mental decisions (choices) that are relevant, not the motion of the ocean
   982. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4169570)
i said the governor got help. both can be helped by yesterday

isn't this a zero sum game?

edit: Coke to bitter

and folks here are way wrong if they think the folks who hate the president were all gop voters previously

But were any of them Obama voters in 2008? I doubt it. McCain won WV by 12 points. I don't think the vote this year will be much different.
   983. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4169571)
The "truly bizarro concept" is pretending you're trying to reduce free loading when actually you're increasing the free loading of scores of free loaders.

The idea isn't to eradicate free-loading, it's to eradicate free-loading by people who don't need to free-load.

The market for health care is unique in that there's essentially a societal compact, engaged in by all, that would-be purchasers of necessary health care will be served even though all parties know they can't pay. It can't be compared to normal markets.
   984. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4169572)
well, you have your mind made up.


??? on this issue?
whether some far righties will be so disillusioned they sit out/ vote Johnson? no...

i have the power of hate on my side

and that is a mighty powerful tool

sorry



Your honesty is admirable.
The two Teapers (sorry Ray) in my office, also admit that they hate Obama (actually one simply says that he hates what Obama stands for), they also assert that they HATE Romney (repeatedly, endlessly... they're from Mass by the way)- bot say they will hold their nose come November, but one has started saying, "hey, I'm in NY, my vote doesn't matter, maybe I'll vote Johnson...)

of course, this isn't a swing state, and there is definite calculation going on there...
   985. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4169577)
johnny

the gop has a long tradition of exploiting hate

we have a skill set honed over years of practice

ha, ha
   986. spike Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4169580)
And it's not just Romney either - the Heritage Foundation was all about the mandate in '89.

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

When the conservative party nominee implemented a plan that has passed muster with one of the leading conservative judicial minds, and has had the support of conservative think tanks, I am not sure how one can argue that this is an outrageous case of liberal overreach with a straight face.
   987. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4169581)
bully for you
   988. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4169584)
and folks here are way wrong if they think the folks who hate the president were all gop voters previously

But were any of them Obama voters in 2008?


no- but some may not have voted in 2008...

You do know that not everyone follows polls, and goes on political blogs... Obama's election was a profound shock to many people

turnout in 2010 was some 83 million- that was an off year election, turnout was abnormally high - you had people voting who had not vote din the Presidential election - that's odd.


   989. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4169586)
HW - I actually think the the hate out in the open works against the GOP for this election. In presidential elections there are plenty of low information voters out there (you know those that claim to be independent and vote based on random crap). I think they are turned off when they see bile out in the open.

I think it hurt the Dems back in the day (Vietnam war protests and such) and I think it hurts the GOP now. The GOPs great strength usually is the ability to dog whistle the hate, so the haters hear it and know it and the low information folks don't. Romney is pretty bad at dog whistle politics.

None of that matters if the economy is bad enough, but there are a bunch of things that really do favor Obama in the upcoming election. With each passing week I grow a bit more confident and I think 505/50 undersells Obama's chances.

But I fall victim to confirmation bias as the next guy, so we shall see.
   990. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4169587)
middle 50%? i think that number is much smaller. 20% tops. at least nowadays


If even that much. Barring a completely incompetent candidate, both sides can count their floor at about 44-45%. Even in the 2 biggest shallackings since WW2, 1964 and 1984, the losing candidate still got ~40% of the vote. The thing is, you've got two variables that determine how that turns out.

The first are the relatively low information true independents. Pretty much every bit of research shows that most independents reliably support one party or another, it's only about 20-25% of them that really are up for grabs, and they tend not to spend a lot of time on politics. Obama was probably helped by the decision with this group, simply because it was the best news about the ACA that's been a powerful enough story for people to actually notice it. For these folks, having a major reform be ruled constitutional is an endorsement of a sort, and they sure ain't going to get deep in the weeds on the topic.

The second is the enthusiasm of each party's base. The goal here is to have them enthusiastic enough that it's fairly easy for your GOTV operation to herd them to the polls on election day and not stay home. Here, I'm not sure how things turn out. While it's certainly true that the ruling against them energizes the conservative base and makes them more receptive to getting out for Romney than they might otherwise have been, it's also true that the ruling helps energize the liberal base as well making people more likely to get out to vote to protect the court victory. And at the same time, losing at the court may have fired up some Democrats and made them more likely to vote, it would have been a crushing blow to the morale of a lot of Democrats to see the thing they'd been trying to get done for over half a century go down in flames and possibly damped enthusiasm.

What it comes down to is winning the late breaking true independent voters who generally don't pick until the very last week or so of the election and are currently not paying much attention, while getting as much of your base out as possible in order to gain that vital but tiny edge over the other side's turnout. If you get both done, you win the election. If you win one and not the other, it's going to be a heckuva long election night.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I think I'm in the same time zone as accurate.

   991. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4169588)
johnny

the gop has a long tradition of exploiting hate

we have a skill set honed over years of practice

ha, ha


I know, you forget, I'm not a Dem, I've never been registered as a Dem, I WAS a registered Repub for a long time, and I l;eft teh party for a reason.
   992. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4169589)
Romney is pretty bad at dog whistle politics.


I don't think he actually "gets" dog whistle politics

He's a robot, he doesn't actually feel those kinds of emotions.... :-)
   993. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4169593)
Let's all remember this "inaction is action" argument the next time people here accuse the libertarians of trying to play word games.

I'm generally libertarian, of course, but it really isn't "inaction," at least in its pure form. There has been commercial "action" here -- the providing of the guarantee that necessary treatment will be provided to the uninsured even if they can't pay. If "commerce" entails provision of good/service and payment therefor, the first is already present, albeit in a unique form. Asking the freeriders to buy insurance is more akin to collecting a debt owed than pure "inaction."

   994. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4169598)
I endorse what #990 said, except the part where it was better said than what I wrote. Which I guess makes all of it, so never mind. #990 sucks!
   995. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4169601)
johnny

ah, one of those.

well, the gop has its unpleasant elements. 'tis true.
   996. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4169605)
well, the gop has its unpleasant elements. 'tis true.


Any group with more than ten people likely has unpleasant elements.
   997. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4169609)
Speaking of chances, 538 has Obama at 65/35 to win. That seems about right to me, with the caveat that a ton can happen in 4 months and that people don't really start tuning in until the conventions (remember the Summer of 2008? Remember all the dumb stories on both candidates that really had absolutely no impact on their numbers over the course of that time and were totally wiped out by the Palin for Veep/Economic Crisis big stories?
   998. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4169610)
To be clear, I wasn't saying that 50% of the electorate are swing voters. That number is much, much smaller than even 20%. I was saying that 50% of the electorate aren't strong, ideological partisans. Most of them nonetheless behave like partisans.
   999. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4169611)
#997 - Yeah that sounds about right to me.
   1000. Srul Itza Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4169614)
Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I think I'm in the same time zone as accurate.


Coward. You know you wanted to say zip code.

The Republicans have two countervailing forces working on the "enthusiasm" issue. The base hates Obama, and wants him out. But they are not enthusiastic for Romney, and never will be.

Anybody claiming to know exactly how this will turn out is selling snake oil -- or hGh.


Page 10 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > 

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

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(57 - 2:09am, Apr 20)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(51 - 1:59am, Apr 20)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(363 - 1:48am, Apr 20)
Last: Morty Causa

Newsblogmets.com: Through hitting system, Mets aim to build winner
(9 - 1:43am, Apr 20)
Last: Benji

NewsblogI Don’t Care If I Ever Get Back — And I Might Not
(4 - 1:21am, Apr 20)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(98 - 1:08am, Apr 20)
Last: Canker Soriano

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(40 - 1:06am, Apr 20)
Last: LargeBill

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1736 - 12:58am, Apr 20)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogA’s Jed Lowrie “flabbergasted” by Astros’ response to bunt
(13 - 12:53am, Apr 20)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(38 - 12:45am, Apr 20)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(102 - 12:40am, Apr 20)
Last: kthejoker

NewsblogBaseball Researcher: Some Very Fortunate Footage
(4 - 12:28am, Apr 20)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 19, 2014
(65 - 12:08am, Apr 20)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(153 - 11:23pm, Apr 19)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(918 - 11:14pm, Apr 19)
Last: Spivey

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.9273 seconds
52 querie(s) executed