“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.
I'm not sure this is true, but certainly fewer and fewer of the racists will be non-hispanic whites.
I regard Joe's performance on this thread like SBB's on the Jack Morris threads.
I think he's having fun.
Dan on the other hand I do not think is having fun.
With respect to Obama, drone killings, Bradley Manning and the advancement of the surveillance state, I have slowly [perhaps too slowly] come to the opinion that Obama's actions (and inactions) are just too odious to ignore. That is why I'm seriously considering Gary Johnson.
Of course I'm not in a swing state, if I was I'd have to vote Obama, because, among other things Romney has surrounded himself with the very same neo-cons who essentially set all those things into motion in the first place.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and, thus, is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC § 1401(g). Glad I could clear that up for both of you.
***
I'm a big boy and don't care about name-calling, but the latter statement above is patently false. Non-liberals are outnumbered here by about 10 to 1, and they're outnumbered in name-calling by about 30 to 1. Maybe MCoA or 'robinred' can do one of their patented thread accountings and list all of the insults hurled by liberals and insults hurled by non-liberals. I'm sure the liberals will be shocked, just shocked, at the results.
Assuming this is a nod towards the concept of 'reverse racism' - my question on that is always "does it matter"?
I mean - I'll readily grant you can find folks from any minority group who are prejudiced against whites/other minority groups.
But what does it matter?
Whether you want to look at the halls of government, the boardrooms of corporations, the bosses of businesses, the heads of private clubs, etc - those 'reverse racists' don't really have any levers of power anywhere to do much except stew in their prejudices.
I'm not making any judgments one way or another about whether the black panther is worse than the klansman -- I'm simply saying that as a practical matter -- the klansman has an easier time making his way in the world than does a black panther, regardless of whether both keep their mouths shut or not.
Heck - the panthers don't even get 'dog whistles' - they get 'Sister Souljah moments'.
It isn't. I'm simply stating the obvious - the natural capacity for racism isn't inversely proportionate to skin pigmentation. As the demographics change the social circumstances which give rise to racism will change. It could be that this will result in less racism, but the cynic in me thinks otherwise.
There will be fewer and fewer racist non-hispanic whites primarily because there will be fewer and fewer non-hispanic whites.
KAPOW!
I'm not even making fun of you, Joe, that's a great takedown, well-done.
Your other thing, well, I'm bored, maybe I'll run up a count.
Link, with Photos!
Whinebitchmoan. You troll with non-sequitor insults about "liberals," and then develop a persecution complex when you get called a troll for doing so.
I'm sure if you counted, you'd find Joe often uses "I'm sure if you counted, you'd find X" as proof that X has actually been found, rather than offering real evidence in support of his claim.
The swastika was something important in India before the Nazi's defiled it.
That said, it's obvious what this guy was doing was using the Nazi version instead of the old Hindu one.
Eh, it's got nothing on this guy.
I might have been willing to believe this guy was just really stupid until I clicked the link and saw a swastika prominently featured in the store's sign. Wow.
***
It's really amazing how much the word "liberal" riles liberals. I've never heard a conservative or libertarian complain about either word being used or overused.
***
Side note to Lassus: I think you asked me something about being on Ignore, but I'm too lazy to re-read the last two pages to find it. FWIW, I don't have you or anyone else on Ignore, and you wouldn't be in the top 10 if I were to start using it. (Neither would Shipman.)
Still,too soon. Maybe in 2050.
A friend of mine worked at a high school with a teacher who had never heard of Hitler. Or at least claimed to have never heard of him. I have no idea why someone would lie about it, but it's bizarre enough that I'm not closing any possible explanations.
Vic Hitler the narcoleptic comic
Seriously, if Hitler's father's real name wasn't Schicklgruber, it was Heidler...
Anyway Hitler/Heidler/Heitler are all variations on the same name, which brings me to two of [Adolph] Hitler's hatreds,
Jews and Czechs,
a Heidler was/is the patron saint of the Czechs
and a Heitler was the Director of the Jewish Lawyer's Guild in NYC...
Yeah - my sister-in-law is nominally Hindu - and despite ample warnings to our family/friends, there was an audible gasp at the ceremony when these two 'banners' are held aloft on either side of the bride/groom during the nuptials and among the symbols was a swastika. I believe the original meaning of the symbol was 'good luck'.
Of course, the origin of Hitler is Adolf Hitler - so I don't quite think it counts here.
Trains did run on time though.....
As the JetBlue CEO said "The U.S. economy is not rip-roaring, but it’s certainly not on its heels”.
And thus it goes, never bad enough to doom Obama or even cause the Fed to do anything about it, but never good enough to doom Romney.
And Joe: Even if your claims about the numbers of liberal versus conservative insults are true (and I think your numbers are ridiculous) I never said there were equal insults, I said there were plenty of insults going both ways - and that is about as far from untrue as I can imagine.
I have known many people, who have been through K-12 and at least a few years of college, who have all sorts of bizarre gaps in their knowledge. Thinking Kennedy was a founding father or Pearl Harbor kicked off the Civil War (both true). Uninterested people may take in a quarter or less of the stuff they hear and then process it in their own unique way. I can easily imagine some ignorant dolt having only a vague knowledge that a man named Hitler once existed and that a swastika is involved without any real understanding of the story.
As for swastikas, it's history is far longer than it's use as a Nazi symbol and it will, probably relatively soon, be back to its previous glory.
Hey now German trains ALWAYS run on time.
Liberal bias? What liberal bias?
This guy was only the former political director of ABC News and Yahoo! News D.C. bureau chief.
But move along, nothing to see here ...
If you want to change the ratio stop being, well, you.
A function, no doubt, of the liberal bias of the forums.
LOL. I've only been posting here for about a year and a half. Were all those Lounge conservatives active in these threads from 2004 until 2010? I kind of doubt it.
Regardless, by your logic, Sam Hutcheson's threats of neck-stabbings and general nastiness should have sent BBTF's liberals for the exits years ago. I guess there's yet another double standard in effect here. Shocking.
Wow, the conspiracy must be true!
And like all good conspiracies, the fact that social scientific studies have failed to find any evidence of a systemic liberal bias in media content only serves as further evidence of said conspiracy's existence.
Assuming everything above is accurate, we have three districts where a majority-white district elected an African-American Democrat. Mazal tov!
That's not my point, Andy. In Democrat-leaning districts where whites are in the majority, or even a mere plurality, African-American Dems have a difficult time winning elections.
And now that Obama is POTUS, why is Blue State America without a single African-American Democrat senator?
As you are no doubt aware, African-American politicos in Maryland are not exactly pleased at how the Baltimore-dominated machine treats them. Ditto in Jersey. The late Donald Payne was beyond furious when he was passed over for a Latino, Bob Menendez, after Frank Lautenberg retired.
We're through the looking glass here, people!
It'll be fun to watch the birthers try to distinguish this from their beef with Obama.
Ha ha. One incident? Does over 90 percent of the news media voting for Dems count as "one incident"? Does the media giving over 90 percent of its political contributions to Dems count as "one incident"?
Are you sure? Have you seen his birth certificate?
EDIT: This was a dumb post, I'm just needling JE. eh, back to work.
-Liberal Rag Rolling Stone
It's simple, really: The birthers* claim Obama was born outside the U.S. to a non-citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother, the latter of whom hadn't accrued enough time in the U.S. after age 14 to qualify Obama for birthright citizenship. Once again, glad I could clear this up for you.
(* I am not now, nor have I ever been, a "birther.")
Do you mean 90% of the people, or 90% of the money?
Because if it's 90% of the people, maybe that's true.
But considering FOX News and the money spigot they set up for the Republicans (through donations, free air time, or simply promoting their events non-stop) and almost all the major corporate media CEOs being Republican backers, I'm pretty sure the money side of things leans heavily towards the Republicans.
In a sane universe, the democratic leanings of the people who have the best access to political information would be something republicans were embarrassed by, rather than used as evidence of their persecution.
Yes the one incident of the news guy who was canned. You know the one we were talking about and you used as an example? As you say, glad to help you out :)
Edward Brooke is still alive at age 91. He represents a somewhat earlier black Republican constituency, not far from Jackie Robinson, his contemporary: very liberal and active on civil-rights issues. I don't see any black Republicans like him on the scene today.
I provided you with links to several studies from social scientists who study media bias for a living. I'll continue to assume that you elected to dismiss their findings because they don't conform to your worldview.
And precisely what type of bias are you alleging? Gatekeeping bias? Coverage bias? Statement bias? Institutional bias? There are refined and established methods for studying each of these. Or are you not actually interested in translating your thesis into something that can be nullified?
Repeatedly whinebitchmoaning about liberal media bias, and then failing to back that up with reference to evidence that actually proves what you're alleging, is just more poo-flinging.
OK, I laughed out loud at this comment. I always suspected MCoA had a well-camouflaged gentle side!
The state of Illinois is 78% white according to the U.S. Census and we've elected two African-American Democratic U.S. Senators in the past 20 years. You've probably heard of at least one of them.
Two words: Alan Keyes.
The "liberal media bias" thesis pretends FOX doesn't exist, and ignores the fact that explicitly and nakedly conservative viewpoints dominate the whole medium of talk radio.
Carol Moseley Braun defeated a white man. And I'm fairly sure John McCain is white, too (as were Obama's primary opponents in both his Senate and Presidential runs).
The key excerpt:Now back to work?
Regardless, by your logic, Sam Hutcheson's threats of neck-stabbings and general nastiness should have sent BBTF's liberals for the exits years ago. I guess there's yet another double standard in effect here. Shocking.
A lot of them were active in political threads during that time your ability to embarass your fellow conservatives is not unique.
Have you forgotten your own comments in #3688? If so, here's a refresher:
This was obviously an accidental admission against interest, but your quote above is a very succinct description of liberal media bias at work.
I do agree it was posited, and it does appear hatred of the Kenyan Socialist outwieghs dislike of Mormons. Well that or the theory that the Money wing of the GOP continues to use the Faith wing as suckers, and the suckers have not clued in yet, is strong.
Anyway beyond the random snark I am not very surprised, but many folks are (or should be) by the fact that the base came home for Romney.
2. As long as that group supports party A, party B does what it can within the law to limit the group's influence.
3. Party B does not hate the group, either collectively or as individuals. Ultimately, party B seeks to convince the group that its policies are more likely to benefit the group than party A's policies. (Of course, we can debate the wisdom of this approach.)
Does that sound about right?
And for the record: I don't believe that Democrats hate the men and women in uniform. ;-)
Ummm -- OK -- wait... you can't use your bar as "majority/plurality" for your own purposes, but then set the bar at "MAJORITY" on the other end when the facts conflict with your original thesis.
What's more - you have to remember context... There are 39 Democratic members of the CBC (I'm not counting the DC and Virgin Islands delegates). It's not like there are a ton of black lawmakers to begin with.
How about you just admit that you were wrong in your original statement? Is that so difficult?
I won't dispute that it's far easier for an African-American to get elected from a majority AA district... but your original point was well beyond that, and I think the facts say you were wrong.
a lender that agrees to that deserves to get screwed.
What makes you think that distribution is arising out of an inherent bias, as opposed to a series of people independently arriving at the same conclusion through objective analysis? I.e. journalists as high-information voters disproportionately voting for Dems because the Dems' policies are, when viewed dispassionately, better for those journalists?
Yeah, instead of three blacks elected from majority-white districts, five blacks were elected from either majority-white or plurality-white districts. Huge difference. [insert eye roll here]
From 1993 until 2009, there was a single African-American in the US Senate. Congrats!
As for CMB, she capitalized on the anti-incumbent, Year-of-the-Woman sentiment to unseat Alan Dixon, a moderate D from downstate.
So when will we see the next Moseley Braun? What's stopping other blue states from electing African-American Ds?
umm no, it doesn't sound right whether Party A is the Repubs and the "group" are the men and women in the military, because the Dems (B) are not trying and have not tried "to limit the group's influence." (Though Repubs have falsely claimed they have).
It also does not sound right if Party A is the Dems and the Group are minorities, because the Repubs (or many of them at the very least) really do hate minorities (collectively) and instead of seeking to convince them that their policies would benefit them, seeks to suppress their influence - by legal and dubiously legal means.
Any "conservative" whose inclination is to cower in the Lounge rather than make his case here isn't much of a conservative.
If liberals aren't embarrassed by you and Sam, I'm quite confident I haven't been chasing conservatives out of here. I might humor myself by talking about "liberals," but I don't stalk anyone or threaten people with neck-stabbings.
Huh? You sound like you're just doubling down on the conspiracy theory: the absence of evidence of a conspiracy itself proves the conspiracy.
You could just take a stab at reading the linked social science pubs on the subject. Worth it for the lit reviews alone, which provide a nice orientation to a debate you apparently know nothing about.
I'm sure conservatives would be delighted to trade you FOX and talk radio in exchange for all broadcast news, all cable news other than FOX, NPR, and the majority of all newspapers.
Impossible, we've been assured that all mainstream media editors and management are rock-ribbed conservatives who would pounce on any sign of liberal bias with the quickness.
I admitted to being sloppy. I am happy to do so again. (No, that's not what she said.)
Perhaps you can acknowledge the overall lack of AA representation from D districts that are not minority majority. Or if you prefer, white majority. Or if you prefer, white plurality.
I think it was McCoy who pointed out that Tim Scott won 2-1 in a district that is overwhelmingly white *and* uber-conservative. If racism is rampant in the GOP, how can this be? Is he a "clown" too?
I'm a liberal? Nor am I sure of what I am to be embarrassed about in these political threads.
Any "conservative" whose inclination is to cower in the Lounge rather than make his case here isn't much of a conservative.
Apparently the only true conservatives are the ones that act like trolls.
Sorry, I had trouble reading this through all the smoke. Are you retracting this comment from #3688?
Boston Celtics fans loved Bill Russell. They most certainly didn't want him living next door.
Is racism rampant in the GOP? I doubt it. Do they at time pander to it or use it to get votes? They most definitely do.
2000.
Both sides play this game.
As I noted, there are 39 Democratic CBC members (+1 Republican, 2 non-votinig 'delegates' from DC and VI).
So our dataset is 39 districts.
All are strong to very strong D districts -- only Allan West's FL-22 is anything approaching a swing district (it's a true toss-up, D+1 district). Next is NC-12 (D+9), IN-7 is "only" D+14, MO-5 is "only" D+10, and SC-6 is D+12.... so our data is comprised wholly of what we could consider "strong" Democratic districts (I think D+9 would be 'strong' Democratic... most of the others range from D+20something to D+30somthing).
I find that of those 39 districts, 24 of those districts actually have a 'majority' of any ethnicity. 17 are majority AA. 5 are majority white (I'm not going to go back and see who I missed -- or if you missed 2 in my list). 2 are actually majority hispanic. There's also Steve Cohen - who represents TN-9, a D+23, majority AA district.
Now -- given that several of those 'majority AA' districts are pretty hefty (i.e., 60%+ AA), which just logically means that the pool of candidates is likely TO BE AA, just based on sheer logic --
What more than 5 of 24 (out of 435 total) would be needed to disprove what I'll call the 'plantation theory'?
Your lack of self-awareness is stunning. Your passive-aggressive baiting and stalking of me over the past few weeks has been the living embodiment of the word "troll."
Maybe MCoA or 'robinred' can compile a recap. It won't be pretty.
Maybe you could be clearer on why that would have to be retracted. I assume both of you agree with this statement, you just disagree on what these systemic factors are.
Or I could be missing something entirely here.
That goes against the 2008 Obama narrative.
Meanwhile, Biden's "chains" remark and Toure's bizarre use of the n-word are examples of boy-who-cried-wolf pandering.
That's pretty damning either way.
Privately I have suggested that you both put each other on ignore. Since you don't seem to recognize the wisdom in that suggestion. I am now publicly suggesting you do it so that everyone who participates understands that baiting and trolling other members isn't acceptable.
If this behavior continues, you will both have your accounts suspended.
Ummm -- no -- the original post was "none/are there any", I made a list that JE said had 3, reworking through the district demographics, I find 5.
There aren't a lot of AA's in congress period. Still - I'll pit "our" 5 against "your" 1 if you like (I can't add West to Scott because if we're talking about R or D lean districts - and as noted above, "no one" gets a D+1 district).
Speaking as someone on the left, Sam embarrasses me often.
EDIT: Not that it matters that much: The 1st CD is minority majority, albeit barely.
There's nothing to retract.
Those systemic factors, as I've explained, don't map neatly onto left/right biases. Horse-race journalism doesn't consistently benefit one party over another. The focus on sensationalism (if it bleeds, it leads) doesn't benefit one party over the other. The insistence on covering human-interest stories and celebrity gossip over and above hard news doesn't benefit one party more than the other. I think there are huge flaws with the state of commercial media in this country. I have never suggested otherwise.
The thing that started your whole meltdown on this issue, "the" media's (temporary) focus on abortion over the economy, in light of controversial statements by a Republican candidate for US senate, was what we call a "focusing event"-- like a dramatic shark attack*, it was a sensational story that focused media narrative (and story selection) around the issue of abortion. It's a week later, and the convention news has pushed it off the front page.
And: the US media campaigned openly for the US war with Iraq. When the war started, embedded journalists literally cheered when US soldiers killed Iraqis. Now, we could take this as evidence of a systemic conservative bias in the media, or we can try to explain it using other factors.
*11 years ago this week, right before 9/11, the biggest story of the news cycle was shark attacks, for at least a solid week, in spite of the fact that there are always shark attacks in late August.
Anybody here ever see that movie?
Human-interest stories definitely favor Dems. Every time the GOP talks about balancing the budget, the liberal media rolls out story after story about poor so-and-so whose benefits might be cut or whose special-needs child might end up homeless. They find the most sympathetic people they can find and then pretend they're representative of millions of people.
Remember when welfare reform was going to fill America's streets with people kicked off welfare? The media was shameless back then, and it's even more shameless now. This is why the media's trust/approval rating is only a little better than Congress'.
Well, I got an assist from Gary Condit, too.
Umm, no. This is pure conjecture.
Likewise.
I always thought they should have looked into Condit as the 9/11 mastermind.
Did you say "yutes?"
Awesome. You guys did great work that week-- even in Idaho, people were turning away Candygrams left and right.
Whoever they are, they should have their kids taken away.
But did they open the door for a dolphin?
I am assuming (hoping) I am not one of the "you" in Jim's email, but I don't think he warned me so I am likely not. I hope no one gets banned, because the world is emptier for it (Though I don't blame Jim, and actually this place is much more lenient than many sites regarding personal attacks).
How about a vote swap? I'll get in a flame war with you and someone mad at me can get into a flame war with Joe.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main