“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.
The Republicans in the 1860s-70s and the Dems in the 1960s, SCOTUS under Warren,
that's pretty much all I've got.
Source: ABC News.
In general, the national Republican Party is really, really good at politics, and I expect them to get enough pressure on Akin to force him out. The NRCC is basically saying they'll cut him off, and that should be enough to get him to withdraw unless he's an O'Donnell level crazyperson.
Did O'Donnell ever say anything as crazy as what Akin did? Akin would need to rehab his image *down* to bat-#### crazy.
Wow. Just ... wow.
The problem is that the NRCC is bluffing- if he stays in and IF the race stays competitive- no way are they cutting him off (from money)- OTOH they may still have the problem that no other GOper will want to be seen with him
ok so far.
????
Ok, I don't seem how the prior 2 sentences lead in, but ok.
Ok now you are backing off your apology, which is fine because if you really don't believe you said anything to apologize for, don't apologize.
Some say that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, some say its' the first- first second last I dunno, what I do know now is that Akins is a scoundrel.
Just when I thought Akin was giving me a pass on all those paternity claims. Guess I'm gonna have to be a lot less likeable to the ladies, so they won't want it to begin with.
I didn't call them civil liberties purists, but at the time there was a rather rare situation going on where the temporary suppression of the liberty of some lead to an overall increase in liberty- plus there was a war going on.
I think that in the context of pre-Emanicipation America it's hard to see slavery through a civil liberties lens... don't get me wrong, I understand academically why it is, but the concept of civil liberties was sort of a hidden subtext to "slavery, the issue" I think. In other words, I've got to agree with GregD. I suppose you could say the Warren court - but that was a court, not "truly" a political body.
also, there was the whole thing with bill maher and masturbation.
That was a while ago.
The difference between an O'Donnell and an Akin is that O'Donnell is always a bit crazy, but Akin was generally mainstream until he said something that was absolutely insane.
Well, there was that "I'm not a witch" ad... but I take the point.
Per TPM, at least, they have until Sept 28 -- but would need a court order and they have to cover ballot costs after tomorrow afternoon at 5.
What's interesting here --
I understand why the GOP desperately wants Akin out - but they DO have a tight rope to walk, I think. You'll find plenty of quarters of the GOP base that are still pissed about the way the 'party infrastructure' abandoned O'Donnell (and Angle in NV) in 2010. I get a very strong sense that many of them are looking strategically at things this cycle, but then - it's silly to think there isn't an appreciable part of the GOP that's going to be upset about shunting aside Akin.
To this point -
- Crossroads GPS (Rove's super PAC) has apparently said that they're pulling out of MO-SEN if Akin is the candidate
- RNC Chair Reince Preibus has said "if it were me, I would withdraw".
- RSCC Chair John Cornyn has said that Akin needs to seriously consider whether it's wise to remain in the race
- The National Review has called for Akin to drop out
- Ron Johnson (who's NOT up this cycle), Scott Brown, and Dennis Rehberg (running for MT-SEN) have called on Akin to drop out
Now, on the other hand, the FRC has strongly lined up behind him.
I think this post on TPM "It's up to the Grassroots" is probably about right...
They've basically got 24 hours to finance Akin's campaign. It's not an east coast metropolis race - but MO-SEN is still relatively expensive and I highly suspect that Akin's decision is going to come down to whether the socon movement can finance his bid or not. The establishment players are abandoning him - not that he probably cares, but he certainly does care about their financing.
Well, that and O'Donnell was really a bit of a piker -- if you want to talk about the sort of person who makes a career off of the public till, that's O'Donnell. Numerous irregularities in her previous runs for office (where she was electorally a sacrificial lamb, but had an interesting habit of basically using her campaign funds as a sort of 'salary').
A friend once told me that the percentage chance that he'll call himself an atheist rather than an agnostic is his blood alcohol content times 6.
Todd Akin having an argument with his wife:
Akin: What's wrong? You seem legitimately upset. You never make any sense when you're legitimately upset.
Wife: What do you mean by "legitimately upset"? That's offensive. Also, I do to make sense when I'm upset.
Akin: Well, sometimes, you're not actually upset. You're just pretending to be upset to get out of doing something you don't want to do anyway. So you're saying you're upset, but everybody knows you're not really upset. Other times, you're actually upset, but you have no right to be - if you had the reasoning capabilities and emotional stability of a non-insane person, you wouldn't be upset. But I'm sorry. I misspoke. Obviously you being upset is a very, very bad thing.
Wife: I want a divorce.
Akin. Sorry, I'm not going anywhere.
Also, he slipped her a ruffie and doesn't remember what happened rape.
I've never understood this view. The kinder society, or person, is the one that gives the most to the poor. If you want to adjust it based on available resources, i.e. the widow's mite, then fine by me. But a society that raises $1 million via private donations and gives it to the poor is less generous than an equally rich society that raises $0 via private donations but $10 million via taxation and gives it to the poor.
This idea is based on the concept that virtue is necessarily voluntary, and a concomitant assumption that taxation is necessarily involuntary. That's an interesting philosophical argument, but it pales in comparison to the thing that really matters: are you actually helping the poor or not?
Isn't this reductive? You're doing two things at once: you're forcing your beliefs on the guy whose swag you're taking, and you are also being kind to the person you're helping. There's a balance. The first part doesn't invalidate the second part. It tinges it, so you have to be careful applying this principle, but it doesn't invalidate it.
Yeah, I was about to ask what the hell's in the water.
I'm an agnostic basically because (1) I can't PROVE god doesn't exist, and (2) labeling myself "atheist" would seem to obligate me to try. Which, since I don't really give a rat's ass, I have no inclination to do.
As for Colbert's "atheists without balls" bit, I think "atheist leaners with humility on the subject" is more accurate.
"i'm not a witch, i'm you"
also, there was the whole thing with bill maher and masturbation.
What, no mention of her "tell the truth at all times" absolutism, even to hypothetical SS officers at the door of a person harboring Anne Frank? That might top the masturbation and witchcraft stuff for sheer braindead looniness.
And I always considered agnosticism to be somewhat arrogant. As in "Wait, you're willing to accept the possibility of an all-powerful god, but you want the all powerful god to provide proof of its existence. Who the #### are you? Go #### yourself."
There are lots of things that can't be proven to not exist(Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). Are you agnostic about their existence as well?
Sure, what the hell.
Heh. Well, if he's all-powerful, seems like a reasonable request.
In all seriousness--no, I don't "want" anything of the sort, because I don't particularly care.
You have a reasonable point on Radical Republican anti-slavery; I'm not sure I'd go all the way with you because I think civil liberties is inherently a 20th century idea that just didn't exist in the 19th century. The freedom that Republicans wanted was real and meaningful but was oriented in a different way than ours. And the major organizing cry of free soil was that slavery impinged on non-slaveowners' ability to make their own livelihood. The second pillar of the Republican platform was anti-Mormonism which gives you also another sense of what they thought freedom meant. Freedom to have access to federally subsidized allocation of western homesteads, absolutely. But a general modern-type freedom? Republicans were strongly anti-vice in general, and Boston Republicans simultaneously pushed for emancipation and launched an unprecedented crackdown on prostitution, while other Republicans pushed strong anti-vagrancy laws that essentially criminalized a man being out of work in a city.
Which suggests that the reason that no party has organized primarily around civil liberties is that 1) majorities rarely need civil liberty protection and 2) support for civil liberties for minorities (however defined) is never a particularly popular position.
C'mon. You have to care. I'm one of those dirty atheists, and I can tell you, I care an awful lot. I mean, it's God, man. If I found out tomorrow that God existed and if I did 7 particular things during my mortal existence while refraining from 12 other particular things, that I would go to heaven when I died and that it would be awesome forever, I would toe the ####### line. I just feel pretty confident that's not gonna happen.
It's true! Once I learned the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't exist, I stopped wearing sauce retardent clothing and no longer carry a fork and spoon with me wherever I go.
Maybe I'm just a bad Christian.
At least Morris is being honest here:
Can't wait for the Republican machine to broker a compromise that allows him to keep his house seat after saying essentially he's unworthy to be a senator.
Hahahaha. If Dick Morris isn't the biggest idiot in politics (discounting those who actually hold office, of course), I don't know who is.
You honestly have to wonder if he'd even be getting gigs if the prostitute toe-sucking thing hadn't made him famous. I know he was Bill's campaign manager in '96, but I just don't think "3rd way" takes a genius to formulate and Clinton was simply one hell of a politician. Donna Brazille could have won an election with Bill as the candidate.
How odd. I've never once thought or even considered this to be part of atheism.
Also, every last conversation I've ever had about the existence of god was started by believers trying to convince me of something or troll me, not the other way around, YMMV, etc.
I just don't think you've been following Akin as closely: TPM's list of Akin Crazy.
I wonder if this is even possible, given the late date. From what I've read, the GOP candidate for his House seat has already been chosen.
Anyway, I had barely heard of Akin before yesterday. While I hope he gets out of the Senate race and don't care if he remains in the House or not, this is yet another example of the double standard that exists for GOP pols vs. Dem pols.
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman and Dems didn't care. Bill Clinton was accused of rape and Dems didn't care. Sherrod Brown apparently beat his first wife and Dems don't care. But some unknown GOP candidate says something dumb, and you'd think the world was about to end.
Woohoo!
Scientific theories are no different than religious ones. You can't prove a scientific theory, only disprove it. The power of science comes from its predictive power. Whether or not a theory is 'Truth' is less important than whether we can use it to predict what will happen.
Religious beliefs have no predictive power one way or the other. You end up with the beliefs you have either without much choice (e.g. they are the beliefs that were passed onto you at a young age and have been reinforced by your chosen social groups) or by choice (e.g. you choose the beliefs you have because you find them most comforting).
As a personal matter, my atheism is of a Nietzschean variety. I choose not to believe in God because that's the belief system that provides me the most direction/comfort in my life. It's not something I feel the need to advertise or explain, primarily because what would I gain by convincing someone that God doesn't exist?
That appears to be the case.
Only because McCaskill is vulnerable. When it's a race they cannot hope to win, they don't care either. Or have you forgotten Alan Keyes, candidate for Senate already?
Seems like the GOP is going crazier about this than any Dems are.
Yes, that's the Dems' fault. Duh.
I thought this was his point, that the GOP is more principled or something.
I'm sure it was a coincidence that Obama finally graced the media with his presence today.
Or bigger wimps.
Basically, a lot of these players aren't ready for the Show, and you can't just send them back to AAA like you can in baseball.
Mostly, I think it's that the types of people most attracted to politics these days are the types of people who should be kept the furthest from actual positions of power.
The kinder society is the one that helps poor people not be poor anymore. Which is not to say that such a society would neglect charity by any stretch of the imagination or that the majority of tax dollars in our "kinder" society are going to the poor.
I think if "accused of" is the standard, then hell - Laura Bush has been accused of vehicular homicide towards an ex-boyfriend.
Debating which side has more (miscreants + accusations of miscreancy) isn't a very fun game, though. It's like google bingo.
2. Distance self from problem.
3. Turn issue.
4. Accuse Democrats of worse.
I call this the Joe.
I don't recall Laura Bush running for office.
I'm not a Todd Akin supporter at all, and I hope he gets out of the Senate race for the good of the GOP. But if killing a woman didn't disqualify Teddy Kennedy, and being a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan didn't disqualify Robert Byrd, and beating his wife didn't disqualify Sherrod Brown, then it seems like the Senate could survive Todd Akin. The media double standard is laughable.
Thank God for Drudge.
I have nothing to add to the 5,000,000 words that have been written on Chappaquiddick
You're answering two different questions. Agnosticism is a position on whether the question is answerable. Atheism is a position on belief. You can be agnostic without being an atheist, or vice-versa, or both, or neither.
I didn't use the word "protect" or claim the media ignores such stories when Dems are involved. The media does, however, greatly amplify such stories when GOP pols are involved. The quickest way for an unknown GOP politician to get famous is to say something dumb or impolitic. Doing so will generate enough media attention to make the Kardashians jealous.
How exactly are unknown Dem politicians getting famous in opposition?
Well, the first example that springs to mind is a smooth-talking but otherwise thinly qualified back-bench legislator whom a fawning liberal media turned into The Messiah within a matter of months.
Interesting. My atheism is not really a matter of choice. I don't choose my beliefs; I arrive at my beliefs through observation and experience. I don't really find it comfort either; it's just what makes sense to me.
I don't think you can convince someone that God doesn't exist. In fact, I think the very question is entirely unanswerable. It's framed in such a way as to be unanswerable.
That said, I think that I have a responsibility to represent myself as a moral individual without faith. There are people that believe that my lack of belief makes it impossible for me to be a moral actor, and I think it's important to set an example that proves this false. Religion also often stands in the way of scientific progress and peace, and that also is something that I feel a responsibility to speak out against.
Well, if Jindal wasn't the worst public speaker in the galaxy, maybe you'd have something.
But instead, you have absolutely nothing, I can see.
Typical lefty, valuing style over substance. Jindal's government track record is a hell of a lot better than Obama's.
Speaking of Louisiana, what happened to Morty Causa? He's been M.I.A. for a while now.
Could you cut that #### out? Please? It's easier to pretend that you are worth arguing with if you keep such comments to a minimum.
You guys don't want me to have any fun. Typical ...
Oh good lord. It was YOU guys who abandoned your young, accomplished legislative star because he had no style, not the Democrats.
But was it a legitimate death?
The GOP abandoned Jindal? I don't recall him even dipping his toe in the presidential waters this time around.
But anyway, call me when the liberal national media starts fawning over some random GOP back-bench state legislator who has six years in government and zero notable legislative achievements.
Yes, a Presidential run is the only way to elevate the profile of anyone. The way the GOP has been doing to Jindal since he gave his kindergarten speech to America in 2009. But that's the liberals' fault, of course.
But anyway, call me when the liberal national media starts fawning over some random GOP back-bench state legislator who has six years in government and zero notable legislative achievements.
Call me when you come up with something more substantive.
Not sure what -ic or -ist that makes me.
I don't see a denial in there re: Obama being a media creation.
***
Paul Ryan's been in Congress for 14 years, which is 13 years more than Obama had when he announced for president. If a GOPer like Ryan had been so presumptuous as to announce for president after only a year in Congress, the media would have crushed him.*
(* I know Ryan wasn't eligible to be president after his first year in Congress, due to being under 35. The general point stands, though.)
Paul Ryan's been in Congress for 14 years, which is 13 years more than Obama had when he announced for president. If a GOPer like Ryan had been so presumptuous as to announce for president after only a year in Congress, the media would have crushed him.*
Add counting to the list of things Joe Kehoskie is totally ####### stupid about.
Not like Paul Ryan. The list of bills with his name on them is as long as...
This may already have been mentioned on pages 19, 22 and 26 of this thread, but the answer is (2). He got a bill passed establishing a tax rate for arrows (the kind that go with bows). And a bill renaming a post office. Ryan is in his 14th year as a U.S. Representative.
Paul Ryan is touting his legislative bona fides over Obama '08. Last Saturday, he told an interviewer, "About foreign policy[...], I’ve been in Congress for a number of years. That’s more experience than Barack Obama had when he came into office. And I've voted to send people to war.”
There's an Abraham Lincoln joke in here somewhere.
For some reason, this reminds me of the Little Match Girl story.
Which part are you nitpicking? That Ryan's been in Congress 13 years and 8 months rather than 14 years, or that Obama waited until his second year in the Senate to formally announce he was running for president, which everyone with an IQ over room temperature knew was happening as soon as Kerry lost in '04?
The media's handling of Donald Trump and Herman Cain was certainly a brutal pair of crushings. Some of us still remember the way the media eviscerated Ross Perot.
Obama was sworn in as senator on January 3, 2005 and announced he was running for president on Feb 10, 2007.
Or January 15 if you go by the date of his "exploratory" committee announcement. Still, that's is two years. Not one year. And that is during his third year in Congress, not his second.
The pathetic thing about Joe's lying is that the truth doesn't really change the essential valid point: that Obama was not very experienced in public office for a presidential candidate. He is just such a trollish boor that he can't resist lying to make his case sound even better.
Yes, I'm sorry. Obama had been in the Senate for a full 30 minutes before announcing for president, rather than the 20 minutes I claimed earlier.
LOL. Obama's 2007 "announcement" was the worst-kept secret in D.C. He was running for president from the moment he arrived in the Senate, if not before.
Yes, I'm sorry. Obama had been in the Senate for a full 30 minutes before announcing for president, rather than the 20 minutes I claimed earlier.
If you want to understate a person's time in office by a full 100 percent, don't be surprised when people call you a ####### liar.
At least someone in the "establishment" is sticking with Akin.
LOL. Obama's 2007 "announcement" was the worst-kept secret in D.C. He was running for president from the moment he arrived in the Senate, if not before.
Backtracking on your lie now, eh? This is the internet, and I can just quote you.
Why don't you stop being a crybaby and just admit you lied? You would look so much less pathetic if you did.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main