“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”
The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.
“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”
With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.
“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”
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.
All of these things have happened before and all of these things will happen again...
There's one little word in that rantlist that ensures it -- "Obama"... If we had this same conversation 5 years ago, there would have been one little different word that ensures it -- "Bush"... 15 years ago - the word would have been "Clinton"... 30 years ago -- "Reagan"...
Since there seems to be such unanimity amongst people on the left AND right about many of these items, it would probably be a lot more productive towards the ends if opponents of them would just get in the habit of dropping that one little word that changes every 4 to 8 years and focusing on the items themselves.
All out war in another country is a little more brazen than the covert operations of the past, and none of the others had drones at their disposal to make it so appallingly easy to kill people on the other side of the world. Not until Obama did it become customary or acceptable to demand US citizens show "papers" at random checkpoints at bus stations, train stations and road sides around the country.
I was framing my response to the idea that Obama is an alleged Constitutional scholar. If he is or was, it clearly only gave him contempt for it. And yes, the Feds and the President has continually eroded Constitutional protections, but the pace at which this is happening under Obama is dizzying.
Seriously?
Either you're quite a prodigy - only 3 years old, but already to use the internet and type in complete sentences, or you slept through 2001 through 2009.
But hey - clearly, making it a nakedly partisan problem to lay at the feet of the guy in office worked out well for progressives so I'm sure you'll have the same success.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.
I've pointed out the fact that the Dems and Repubs are equally adept at ruining the country, but that gets me shouted down too.
You don't know what you're talking about. Politicians wanted the DOJ to buy the prison because it would create jobs, but they adamantly OPPOSED using it for Gitmo detainees:
Er, what? Thirded.
Also, they were doing the first two after 9/11 with regularity in NYC. Perhaps elsewhere? Dunno, I was mostly in the city. Kinda before "Not until Obama".
So they wanted the DOJ to buy the land but not use it?
That's because the MSM stays silent on it. If you can handle getting some information from the odd "conspiracy" website, Google "VIPR checkpoints" and you'll find a lot more examples than this.
Apparently the only MSM story on VIPR
Most folks concede Ryan's expertise on budget issues, and that he is an articulate advocate for his views. He doesn't need a teleprompter or even notes to be persuasive, even with non-GOP voters. The contrast to Joe Biden could be quite striking. Biden graduated near the bottom of his class at Syracuse University Law School, then and now a rather middling law school, and he's lucky to have graduated at all, having once plagiarized 6 pages of a law review article. Biden ran for President twice without generating any traction, and many found his performance during various S. Ct. confirmation hearings less than impressive. Ryan has the potential to make headway in the VP debate, put Wisconsin in play, and have some spillover effect in other Midwestern states. Most importantly, Romney was going to be attacked over the House GOP budget plan anyway, why not have its most articulate advocate in position to help defend it?
No, they wanted the DOJ to use it as a prison — but NOT for terror suspects.
Ahhh... so instead of one flawed word, why not go with two to ensure partisans from both sides shout you down?
The Civil Rights movement is rather instructive here, I think... Undoubtedly, the Democratic party up until the 1950s/60s was home to the loudest proponents of segregation. It took a Republican President (Ike after Brown v. Board of Education), a couple of Democratic Presidents, and a coalition of northern Democrats and Republicans willing to set aside concerns about 'economic liberty' to pass most of the era's legislation.
The sad fact is that, just like the civil rights champions of 50 years ago, there simply wasn't a critical mass of the populace opposed to a policy to do anything about it... and aligning with one party over the other in hopes of that had gotten them nowhere.
The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it WASN'T made into a partisan issue that would force one party in our two-party system to 'turtle up' into a defensive crouch, but rather -- put the issue itself on the forefront, and forced both parties into addressing it.
I see nothing about anyone being forced to "show papers".
That was one scary demand for papers and identification. Coke to Dan.
It's concerning and not how I want to live, granted. But, again, in response to your OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA, this crap has been happening since 2001, not 2008
In that story I see random inspections, and inspections based on tips that drivers are encouraged to make, but not anything about "show me your papers."
(Not that the critique of the AZ law from the left was truthful, either.)
Of course - the town with the prison didn't feel that way (WSJ: Guantanamo Detainees Welcome Here and Many in Illinois town hope locating Gitmo detainees there helps business).
Thomson was always a George Ryan construction project sop -- they never even bothered to budget staffing and other costs to actually open and operate the prison. It was a $150 million boondoggle.
As Shredder notes - the timeline here is important - your article is from 2012, when the plan to close Gitmo was a hulking, smoking debacle of a dead deal... Quinn, Durbin, and plenty of others had no such compunction when the plan was first floated.
That's odd, since your link specifically says this with regards to the governor:
I guess you missed the part in bold. Here it is again:
The Thomson prison deal is and always was a money grab.
In this article I see checkpoints, searches, and screenings - but no "show me your papers."
You apparently have a disturbingly weak grasp on English comprehension. The Tribune report says what it says. Why would Durbin have Holder swear under oath not to house Gitmo detainees in Thomson if Durbin wasn't opposed and/or if moving detainees to Thomson was truly the end game?
So, basically, you're saying Durbin was lying through his teeth when he "[made] clear that support in Illinois for the prison purchase hinged on the guarantee that no Guantanamo Bay prisoners be shipped to the facility"?
Even by political standards, that would have been a rather brazen form of lying.
Bush's abuses in all of these areas were bad. What's unnerving, though, is that I feel like Democrats opposed those abuses when Bush was in office. And then Obama came in, and took all that bad stuff even further, and the Democrats effectively said "Well, I trust my President" and rolled over and went back to sleep. And I feel completely confident that when some non-Democrat becomes President, both professional and civilian Democrats will suddenly wake up and remember that they oppose those abuses.
I won't ever think it's OK to lock people up forever without having to show any evidence to anybody, no matter which political party is in charge at the time.
I can't find any stories that say people in Illinois were jumping up and down about housing terror suspects. From Day 1, the whole issue seemed like it was being used by Illinois politicians as a bailout — i.e., a convenient way for Illinois to unload a $200 million prison that they foolishly built but then never used. Other than the small-town mayor who talked about jobs, the other pols mostly seemed interested in having the feds send a $200 million check as soon as possible, not caring if the DOJ ever used the prison at all.
And voting booths.
Oh wait, that's the Republicans. Never mind.
That's a particularly poor (and infuriating) analogy.
Certain belief in the extraordinary without extraordinary evidence IS irrational. That doesn't mean that you can't be smart or sane if you have faith. It does mean that in this particular area, such a person has willfully and deliberately decided to ignore the rules of logic that apply to practically every other positive belief that human beings accept as reasonable. (To be clear, I don't think it's necessary to be perfectly rational in order to be smart or sane; otherwise none of us are. I have a problem with being willfully irrational but I have a problem with people who favor the death penalty too; it's just one part of the package.)
Morality is not only distinct from religious belief, but often in opposition to it. The terrorists that flew planes into the WTC did so because of their religious conviction; the people who bomb abortion clinics do so because of their religious conviction; the people who perform female genital mutilation do so because of their religious conviction.
All beliefs are not worthy of the same respect. (I would elect a Scientologist if I agreed with his positions.)
I have to agree with this. I think Obama has failed pretty miserably in this department.
Agreed as well. This and the Afghanistan folly have been his major failings.
Well, that and I would kind of like it if Holder could manage to bring a case against just one of the many Wall Street miscreants.
And still doesn't mean I should vote for someone who enables...nay...supports and enacts...these policies.
If all of your choices for defensive coordinators like to rape little boys, it doesn't mean you look past it to figure out which one runs the best 4-3 defense.
I just started reading the Flashman series this year (odd in that I've known of the series for years and known it would be right up my alley, but didn't start until now). The first book takes place in Afghanistan in the 1840s and it's just mind-blowing thinking of the armies that have wandered around that place, not accomplishing a great deal since then.
I thought Obama solved this problem. My evidence is that the media no longer complains about it.
Ummmm, no, it's really nothing like that.
Yep. I also don't like some of the stuff that Obama and Duncan have done with education, but that is to be expected. I am not surprised, though. I still like Obama, but he really has been pretty much what I expected across the board--including Guantanamo.
Jon Corzine?
I have zero confidence that any D/R/I candidate over the last 30 years is any better.
Luckily i live in california so my vote doesnt count.
The situation is so bad it makes me want to get into politics.
Ooh, a teleprompter burn. And Biden's college days!
Ryan wants to take away Medicare so he can cut Mitt Romney's taxes to 0%, and he still blows a hole in the budget. Being articulate is Ryan's problem, not his solution.
Ryan's budgets are the budgets that any Republican would come up with in 2012. Taxes cut sharply for the rich, military budget up, entitlements aren't cut today but "in the future", Laffernomics to raise revenue despite the tax cuts, discretionary spending somehow at $0 at some point in the future. He served his masters well in that regard. Believe me, if you want the election to be about RyanCare, the Dems will take that with open arms.
Wow.
Posted without comment.
That's my position as well. Once it's a legitimate use of force, there's no reason to use less discriminating weapons that might hit other targets or to risk the lives of our soldiers. If a live sniper or commando raid would be okay, then a drone is just fine.
The hard part is establishing that it's a legitimate use of force.
Apparently, all the students were over 18, so she's not charged with statutory rape, but is facing five counts of having an improper relationship between an educator and a student. Didn't know they had closed that loophole.
My favorite line from the article: "The suit alleges that Cowboys Stadium posted no warning signs alerting fans that the benches could be hot."
Did Paul Ryan ever plagiarize Neil Kinnock?
I mean, I obviously disagree with what Rand advocated. (I personally think a lot of what she wrote is bunk), but the 'test' has already been applied and Rand followers have already passed so to speak.
Most of the public has no idea who Rand is.
Was she ever photographed with Saul Alinsky? Because that might get some media coverage.
No reason that Ryan should "have to" disavow Ayn Rand, or anyone else. Whom he chooses to worship is his own business. But I do want Ryan to be thoroughly grilled in public at least once about her "philosophy" (which he's said repeatedly that he admires) by someone who's well acquainted with it, and let him try to explain what it is about her views that he finds so compelling. It should make for a most interesting set of exchanges.
Most of the public has no idea who Rand is.
And that's exactly why I want to see that above exchange, preferably in the vice presidential debate. It would be a complete sellout of seriousness on the part of the media if they didn't dig into Ryan's association with this loopy woman's writings. If it had been just an adolescent passing phase on his part, it'd be one thing, but from everything he's said to date, the only thing that bothers Ryan about Ayn Rand is her atheism. There's nothing else in her "philosophy" that he seems to object to. It's certainly a far more important topic to pursue than Romney's Mormonism, since clearly Rand's ideas have influenced Ryan's secular worldview much more than the tenets of the Book of Mormon have shaped Romney's political philosophy.
I haven't read a scrap of her writing since I was that age.
I've mentioned this here before, but I tried reading Atlas Shrugged in high school. It was the second worst literary experience of my life, coming in behind Oliver Twist. Nothing's worse than Oliver Twist.
From all accounts, Paul Ryan is an eloquent spokesman for his belief system. Given that the writings of Ayn Rand have played such an important role in establishing that belief system, it seems kind of elementary for us to dig a lot deeper into the nature of that (intellectual) relationship, and what it says about Ryan's worldview today.
It's the farthest thing in the world from "gotcha", because in my scenario Ryan would be given more than adequate opportunity to answer these questions as fully as he likes. But it's not as if he's exactly running for dogcatcher. We deserve this sort of a dialogue from someone who's running for the second highest office in the land.
In post 2370 you just posted his answers to your gotcha questions. Did you not read what you posted?
What's wrong with Oliver Twist? I mean - you can tell the nature of a character the minute you read his or her name and there's inevitably going to be a long-lost rich relative to save the day, but that's pretty much par for most of Dickens' works.
In post 2370 you just posted his answers to your gotcha questions. Did you not read what you posted?
Of course I read what he said, and perhaps even you have. But I think those remarks of Ryan's deserve a much wider, prime time audience, which would include an opportunity for him to elaborate on what he finds so admirable about Ayn Rand. And then let the chips fall as they may. I would think that he would welcome such an opportunity.
I was against the DEFEND RAND idea myself, but this comparison is plain stupid. Rand, no matter what one thinks personally of her OR her veiws, started a philosophy embraced internationally by millions of people and debated by many millions more. Wright is a local nobody preacher (almost) nobody cares about, and who would have been even less known without the whole Obama kerfuffle. Don't be so damned dense.
One?
The intellectual "influence" on candidates for Pres/VP hasn't been a matter of mass concern for decades, if ever. (Excepting of course the influence of Jesus, bringing to mind the 2000 debate question trying to probe people the candidates had found most influential. Bush -- surprise!! -- answered, "Jesus.")
Elementary Differences 101, presented for your benefit:
-----There was, and is, absolutely no evidence that Barack Obama's political views were shaped by Jeremiah Wright in any shape, manner or form. All there was there was innuendo and unverifiable inferences.
-----By contrast, Paul Ryan has openly stated that his worldview was greatly formed by the writings of Ayn Rand. You don't need to rely on innuendo or unverifiable inferences to make this claim. He makes it himself.
Now I realize that this distinction makes no difference to you. And I can understand your motiviation in pretending that there's no difference. But spare us the phony innocence.
WTF difference does it make how well known the person was? Why would the inquiry hinge on that?
(But it's kind of hilarious that yesterday someone - I think Zonk - was trying to make the case of how *well* known Wright was - he was on tv regularly, he was a routine guest, etc - and here you're trying to claim that practically nobody knew who Wright was at all.)
Presented with Letters, Ryan admits requesting stimulus cash...
Someone's awfully good at forging Ryan's signature...
My favorite is the last one where he expresses how pleased he is with the 7600 jobs the project he supports proposes to create or save with the stimulus grant.
I've mentioned this here before, but I tried reading Atlas Shrugged in high school. It was the second worst literary experience of my life, coming in behind Oliver Twist. Nothing's worse than Oliver Twist.
Pride and Prejudice? Great Expectations? Catcher in the Rye? All far, far worse IMO.
ISTM Catcher, like above descriptions of Rand, is most relevant to sixteen year olds.
One?
That's probably correct, but given that Paul Ryan is among that 1%, and given the office he's running for, I'm not sure what relevance there is in that statistic.
The intellectual "influence" on candidates for Pres/VP hasn't been a matter of mass concern for decades, if ever.
That's largely because few of them have been so markedly (and admittedly) influenced by a single writer who was so far removed from the mainstream as Ayn Rand.
And yes, I realize that in one sense Rand was a steppingstone for Ryan to go on to Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman. All of that is something that he should also be given the full opportunity to explain. Again, this isn't an attempt at "gotcha", only an attempt to get to the root of his political and economic beliefs. If Ryan is as serious a thinker as he's made out to be by his supporters, he should welcome an opportunity like this.
The Ryan budget is never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to get passed. It's highly, highly, highly unlikely to ever even be proposed.
The Republicans had a mandate for cutting government in 1980 and 1994 -- and in 1994 a True Believer had real power -- and nothing of the sort came close to happening.
You already have. He's been influenced by The Usual Suspects of right-wing autodidacts.
Because no one cares how much Paul Ryan was influenced by Bob Ryan. Or Frank Ryan from the local deli.
(But it's kind of hilarious that yesterday someone - I think Zonk - was trying to make the case of how *well* known Wright was - he was on tv regularly, he was a routine guest, etc - and here you're trying to claim that practically nobody knew who Wright was at all.)
What's hilarious is your constant accusations of intellectual dishonesty when you take "in comparison to Ayn Rand and her work" to mean "practically nobody at all". You are practically vicious in your frank duplicity. You've moved straight into "brazen" with your OH REALLY I CAN'T IMAGINE LOOK IT'S THE SAME garbage lately.
And note: I continue to completely disagree with Andy's take on Ryan and Rand. And I still think you're ridiculous.
Actually - it was proposed and did pass the House... You must live in a Dem-held district because the DCCC is hanging that vote on every incumbent Republican as best they can.
All for show. Passing the House doesn't make it law and knowing it isn't going to become law makes it easier to pass the House.
I think you missed my point -
Wright is relatively well-known here in Chicago and my point was that there is a tremendous amount of material that the man has said publicly and readily available to be read -- and as such, using the 60 seconds worth of clip during an inflammatory sermon to define his... "philosophy" was being willfully obtuse.
Do you understand my point now, or do I need to explain it with smaller words?
Perhaps with a D Senate (and a certain Obama veto, with a lack of numbers to override in the House)... but Romney is on record as saying that he'd have signed the budget into law.
If the Republicans flip the Senate, hang onto the House, and Romney wins the WH -- do you really think it would just be cast aside?
He understands. He's just dishonest about it.
Yes. You can win an election with 50.1% support; you need a lot more than that to pass a budget like Ryan's.
The examples of 1980 and 1994 also lead to this unescapable conclusion.
The Republicans are not going to cut domestic spending to the bone like Ryan proposes. It simply is not going to happen.
in 1980, democrats controlled the house. in 1994, democrats controlled the presidency.
in 2012, if romney wins, neither of that is likely to be the case.
when someone tells you they're going to kill you, it's kind of in your best interest to take them at their word. and when the republicans tell you they're going to pass the ryan budget, again, it's in your best interest to take them at their word.
Is that because you think that Rand's influence on Ryan is unimportant? Or is it because you think that influence is a thing of the past that's he's "gotten over"? Or is it because you think there's enough rope to hang Ryan with without needing to get into deeper questions of his fundamental worldview?
If (say) Joe Biden had given speeches to a leading Marxist group, proclaiming that Karl Marx has explained the moral case for socialism better than any other writer, and that he (Biden) had been profoundly influenced by Marx's writings, do you think that would be of no interest or concern to the 99% of the population who's never read Karl Marx? I'd find that hard to believe, and yet in the case of Ryan and Rand, we're not talking about a hypothetical scenario, we're talking about a link that Ryan has openly proclaimed with a fair amount of pride. Why the reluctance to probe any deeper?
People with good taste in literature.
Is that because you think that Rand's influence on Ryan is unimportant? Or is it because you think that influence is a thing of the past that's he's "gotten over"? Or is it because you think there's enough rope to hang Ryan with without needing to get into deeper questions of his fundamental worldview?
I somehow think that making him specifically defend or justify it is weird. And probably pointless. I think it's more than apparent in enough of his public speaking, actions, and policy that it's not necessary or fruitful to try and sledgehammer RAND RAND RAND over him.
That is probably more of an opinion than a rights or policy or election imperative issue.
(And inasmuch as Wright is not Rand, Rand is not Marx.)
You really do -- if the House and Senate are 50.1% Republican, the Ryan budget has zero chance of passage.
If Ryan doesn't want the Democrats to define him in a cement block to be thrown off Pier 16, he's going to have to begin going beyond platitudes about "reform", and begin addressing the question of what those fixed dollar vouchers are going to mean for those whose medical insurance expenses far outstrip those allocated amounts. He's going to have to explain why he wants to transfer those costs to those least able to afford them. He's got a lot of explaining to do to those not in the comfort zone of the "anyone but Obama" base.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about anything beyond one long Q&A session with someone who's knowledgeable about Rand's writings, a session where Ryan will be given the full opportunity to contextualize his past statements. I'm not talking about some ####### cable show shouting match.
(And inasmuch as Wright is not Rand, Rand is not Marx.)
But that's only because unlike Marx's disciples, the disciples of Rand have never controlled armies and governments. Certainly Ayn Rand's vision of a perfect society is every bit as horrifying as anything Karl Marx ever had it mind, though when you get to that sort of comparison, it's kind of like asking whether you'd rather be fried or boiled.
Ayn Rand : Paul Ryan : Liberals :: Saul Alinsky : Obama : GOP/TPs.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main