“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.
Hey now you are both stars! But yeah I guessed it was you and Joe.
Anybody here ever see that movie?
Max, right? Which is a really bizarre movie. You want to like the concept, in some ways, but it's just not very consistently carried out, and it gets too weird too quickly.
Along similar lines, a very good novel is Beryl Bainbridge's Young Adolf, which I found funny and irreverent (and much more skillfully done). But not for all tastes, I can understand …
More reasons why BBTF should watch more American Dad.... I immediately thought of the episode where Stan beats out Roger for a community theater part, and, long-story short - they end up getting arrested when they one-up each other to the point of public lewdness.
Yes!
YESSS!
Brilliant!
Oh, sorry, I forgot. You bastard!
or me, or anyone else on these threads
I don't see Sam as being of my political persuasion (Utilitarian/Rockefeller Republican) so he doesn't "embarrass" me, I on occasion find him to be:
funny,
witty,
enlightening,
maddening
infuriating
cringe inducing
right headed
wrong headed
pig headed
sometimes more than one in the span of a single post
Maybe I can fool Jim by changing my screen name. Would "Hatfield" be too obvious?
You guys don't like each other. I get it; we all get it. So stop it. There are many other people you can debate your points without it devolving into childish name calling.
Again, put each other on ignore.
Or Quality Meats?
yes, you are better off going by
Oejay Ehoskiekay
As long as you include a toothless photo.
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?
To put that in context, you'd want to know:
How many "blue states" have significant African American percentages? The U.S. has 12.2%. Blue states with higher percentages than that are Maryland (29%), New York (15%), Illinois (14%), and Michigan (14%). From those four states, we've had two Democratic Senators, both from Illinois.
How many black candidates have actually competed in Democratic primaries within those states? That I don't know.
How many have won, or lost? Again, I don't know.
Objectively speaking (if that's possible), how strong were their candidacies? You tell me.
Another question might be how many black Democrats have been nominated in red states, only to lose in the general election. Here you have Harvey Gantt in North Carolina, who lost two close Senate races to the most notorious Senate racist of the last 40 years (a Republican, in case you'd forgotten); and Harold Ford of Tennessee, who lost another close race in 2006. Give those two a handful of percentage points and the question would look a bit different.
In addition, if you look at Governors, there's Douglas Wilder and Deval Patrick, one from a swing state with a high % of blacks, and the other from a blue state.
And then of course, there's the little matter of the current occupant of the White House, as you and others have noted. Can you even imagine an African American Republican being seriously considered for president by anyone other than Dick Morris? Condi Rice and Colin Powell are perhaps the best examples of black Republicans with possible crossover appeal (well, before Iraq, anyway), but they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated (even before Iraq), not with their liberal social views.
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.
No argument with you about Maryland. Don't know enough about the particulars in New Jersey.
EDIT: cokes to anyone who's deserved them. I've skipped past the last few hours of Kehoskie On The Cross posts, assuming that these are still going strong.
Boy that's going to go over well.
You know what, all 4 of my grandparents were born in Ireland, and I grew up with a hell of a lot less $ than Ann, and I do not have the chutzpah to say that I know what it's like to be the child of immigrants (my parents did obviously).
witty,
enlightening,
maddening
infuriating
cringe inducing
right headed
wrong headed
pig headed
sometimes more than one in the span of a single post
A single post? Hell, it's usually in a single sentence.
Ummm, Herman Cain was leading the polls at one point.
Powell and Rice's problem is that they are too liberal (especially on abortion) not too pigmented.
Dammit, now I find myself putting away my box of nails. I actually think that'd be a great idea. I once drove four hours into the moonshine part of West Virginia to look at something like 4,000 books, and all I brought back was a book club edition of The Fountainhead, a book on the Hatfields, and a book on the McCoys. So anything that brings back memories of that great day in the country is all right with me.
Joe - I know we've had the discussion regarding the lean of the population and papers up north here, but are you saying this particular decision is liberally biased? The sentence as written implies that, but if you actually mean that it is, I don't get it.
There's a non-moonshine part of West Virginia????
Ummm, Herman Cain was leading the polls at one point.
Yes, until reality set in. The Republican base may enjoy a good kamikaze flight on the state level now and then, but on the national level they're not quite that suicidal.
Powell and Rice's problem is that they are too liberal (especially on abortion) not too pigmented.
Precisely the point about "liberal social views" I was making. For a black person to be nominated for president by the GOP, they'd either have to be way to the right of the mainstream of American opinion, or they'd have to survive the Tea Party gauntlet in the primaries. Neither possibility is likely for a long, long time to come.
Maybe not, but the smell of Sterno and burning turpentine don't overwhelm you in the vicinity of Martinsburg.
I'm not sure the word "black" is adding anything to that sentence. Is what you say here any less true of whites or Hispanics or Mormons?
he may have briefly had a plurality in a crowded Republican Primary field...
I will concede that he was a more serious candidate than Alan Keyes though
Not nearly as often as the Angels pen turns that trick, though.
I am legion.
Eh? This is crazy. Everyone loves me. I'm like friggin' Ray Ramano on this site.
If it makes anyone feel better, I propose Dan and I have a civil debate on the merits of our positions without wrapping things in 20 years of sarcasm and shared conversational assumptions that nobody else seems to get.
But I'm not making out with the guy. He has bad, bad hair.
The way she phrases it is very much an "us and them" type phrasing. She's basically saying the Republican party is not made up of minorities but gee golly we sure do care about you and your problems. I wonder how well that actually resonates with minority voters.
The reason Bill Clinton was so popular was he could get people to believe he cared about them and their problems. When was the last time a Republican was able to convince a lot of people that he cared about them?
No, it was just a segue from the topic of liberal media bias to a story about a paper that has a decided liberal bias. I can't see how this decision was liberally biased, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least partially the result of its liberal bias.
Every paper has its detractors, but respect for the Post-Standard seems to have plummeted over the past five or 10 years. It's one thing to have a liberal editorial stance, but the paper's goofy P.C. sensibilities have made it a local laughingstock. It's sad to see, especially in a one-paper city.
Multi-millionaire, cloistered wife of GOP pol fails to connect with working class minority voters? Shocking.
It is not Rickey's fault that you can't handle the truth.
Romney has convinced a lot of rich people that he truly cares about them, that's for sure...
The "base" doesn't seem to actually care whether or not he cares about them, he's not Obama- and that's good enough for most.
OTOH I can never recall the actual rich being so actively enthused about a candidate before.
and surprise surprise, it was pretty much a non-event-
but he did mention possibly getting Citizen's United overturned somehow- that should get Dan up in arms again...
It's happening in Alabama and Louisiana too-- it has nothing to do with "liberal" bias, and everything to do with the fact that younger generations aren't subscribing to print newspapers anymore.
The Birmingham News, The Press-Register, The Huntsville Times, and The Times-Picayune are all moving to this model. There are others too, these are just a few examples OTH. They're moving to Wednesday, Friday and Saturday because those are the days advertisers seem to like best. Or the days that the liberal journalists employed by these papers can best work their brainwashy magic.
apparently he logged on from Air Force One- and proved he was himself by uploading a cell phone photo of him doing so...
print is dying EVERYWHERE
I'm not sure the word "black" is adding anything to that sentence. Is what you say here any less true of whites or Hispanics or Mormons?
Well, a white Mormon named Romney seems to have done pretty well. I'd like to think he's well to the right of the mainstream of American opinion, but that remains to be proven in November.
One of our 19th C. Presidents would allegedly sneak out in disguise and stroll around DC chatting people up...
OP delivered proof.
EDIT: And, fwiw, I'm a 26 year old city dweller with a subscription to the New York Times (and I might have maybe kinda possibly also bit on the Groupon for New York even though everything is on the website. :/ ) My gf gets The New Yorker.
Right, but I'm not sure why a black Mitt Romney couldn't have done just as well. If Herman Cain was less of a buffoon and had been a governor of a state somewhere, I don't see why the Republican primary electorate wouldn't have been willing to vote for him. The sentence of yours I quoted read to me like you were saying that to win the Republican nomination, you have to appeal to Republican voters. I'm not sure what the insight is there or what it suggests about race relations within the Republican party. And if you mean to suggest that a black candidate for the Republican nomination would have to be more conservative than Mitt Romney, then I have no idea why you would think that or what your evidence for it might be.
It sounds condescending and insincere as hell to me. But no doubt that's just my liberal bias interfering with my ability to perceive reality, and minority voters will soon surge to Mitt's side and elect him in a landslide.
The reason Bill Clinton was so popular was he could get people to believe he cared about them and their problems. When was the last time a Republican was able to convince a lot of people that he cared about them?
Well, Clinton is a pretty high bar. Very few politicians of any ideology have been as skilled at faking sincerity as him.
But, yes, I would say the last Republican who was that good at it was Ronald Reagan.
The reddit thread is a perfect summary of the last four years, as Obama ignores the upvoted users who asked him about Guantanamo, the TSA, and the drug war, but answers the kids who beg him to ID his favorite basketball player and the recipe for the White House beer. I cannot believe that this baby-kissing, war-mongering asshat is President. It's like 2004 all over again, but, miraculously, even worse.
At least he took the brave stance of voicing his support for a Constitutional amendment intended to overturn Citizens United. The courage to promise things that he knows will never happen is precisely the character that got him elected in the first place.
ABC News today
I have often thought the Republicans would be the first party to nominate a woman for president. For a time Liddy Dole looked like she might be it but she missed her chance. The implications of the party's gender gap are much more dire than the party's racial gap. Black voters are concentrated in 1) states the GOP will never win and 2) states the GOP can't lose in the Deep South. They play a role on the margins of some of the Rust Belt or the Va/NC New South and some other places but it isn't determinative. Running so poorly among women, though, hurts the GOP in virtually every close state. Would a woman candidate prevent that? No. But it might slow the exodus.
Of course I also thought the GOP would nominate a black candidate before the Democrats since they have something to gain (not among blacks but among moderate whites, esp suburban women, who worry the party is racist.) So my track record ain't great.
I remain impressed by Romney's ability to win the nomination despite the evangelical concern about Mormonism. His losses in the South showed there was a hole there to exploit, but he managed to keep upright and moving forward.
The GM bondholders that Obama screwed over say hi.
I love this talking point because it so perfectly encapsulates the stupid.
I think Powell was the GOP's last real chance to 1) nominate an African American candidate that didn't reek of optics over substance* and 2) significantly realign the AA vote to balance out the Dem stranglehold there. It was both an issue of timing and personality. Powell was a war hero, a high-ranking member of the GOP establishment, had the super-cred of the Powell Doctrine and his time with a not-loathed administration (Bush I) at his back. His window was before the GOP doubled-down on the "we hate everyone but old white people and the super rich" strategy that has ruled of late (i.e. the "Tea Party" strain.) And Powell's window was pre-Obama.
If the GOP had gone with Powell as the first African American nominee from any party they could have clawed back some of the "Party of Lincoln" vibes they once had while losing only marginal support from the edges of the southern base. (They would have lost some of the most racist elements of the base, but most of the rank and file would have lined up behind Powell and supported him, even if some of them were supporting a black candidate the way some of the Christianists are supporting a Mormon candidate today; noses held and thinking only of beating the Kenyan Socialist by any means necessary.)
But that window's closed. The Dems took the "first black nominee" and "first black president" flag already, and flags fly forever. Any move now, especially since the GOP responded to the Obama moment by doubling down on the Dixiecrat, will inevitably smell of trying too hard and tokenism. (It doesn't help that they seem so desperate to find a "black guy of our own" that they push people like Michael Steele and Herman Cain into the spotlight for no reason other than their pigmentation.)
*There's a always popular undercurrent in today's GOP to try to replay this game, and double down on the lady parts as well, with Condi Rice, but Rice wants no part of it and would have to sort through the entire process while carrying the Bush-Cheney baggage, whereas Powell would have been on a glide path with no baggage due to the "success" of the his First Gulf War. And of course, the cognitive dissonance of trying to convince women to vote in mass for a GOP candidate just because she has a uterus, while pushing a policy platform that generally considers universal sufferage for women a "mistake" (seriously, listen to Limbaugh or Boortz sometime, kids) is an uphill battle.
Agreed, but I'm pretty sure there was one important consideration preventing this: Powell wouldn't agree to run.
Obama has had some pretty fancy fundraisers, too, and I'm pretty sure his donors will be wined & dined at the Democratic convention. Not an issue.
The word was that his wife said she'd divorce him if he ran. If he would have ran I think he stood a very real chance of winning. He was popular and seems like a decent person. Having said that, I don't think he could have run in 2008 or 2012 and won. The GOP had moved too far away from where he seemed to be for that to happen.
I think they were trying to use his reputation to add authority to the things he said even though they knew they were lies. I don't think they worried about his political career because he was never going to run against Bush in 2004.
Yeah, his opportunity was 1996 or 2000, or if Gore had won in 2000, 2004. Once the W administration sh!t all over him, his moment was over.
I don't find myself surprised that McCain is taking those positions (especially in this circumstance; he's basically there just to be the military-background hawk since neither Romney nor Ryan can play that part), but the towering folly of those positions is notable.
The gestalt of Lassus's posting history, summed up in four words.
Five, if you take into account the contraction.
In terms of a black candidate down the road for the GOP, it still wouldn't surprise me. There is no base of black conservative GOP voters, but there is a cohort of black conservative GOP candidates. If one of them develops, I don't doubt the party would be open, even encouraging, of a run, in part to make them less toxic with cosmopolitan suburban white women. They don't need a black candidate to get black votes; they need a black candidate, eventually, to stop causing anxiety among some white voters. Though there are other simpler ways to do this. J.C. Watts seemed a likely figure until he slipped away. If Artur Davis really got elected to Congress in 2014 in Virginia, he could put himself in play by 2020 or something. A Latino seems more likely, though.
I wonder sometimes if it's less policy than it is the window dressing of being committed to smashing and annihilating the other side over all else.
Now, Mitt Romney has run as a 'true conservative' for about 5 years now (people forget - his 2008 campaign was built around being the 'conservative alternative' to first Guiliani and later McCain). Politically, I'm happy to take his word because the country as a whole isn't as conservative as he's had to play himself up to be on a wide variety of issues to appease the base. They might still vote for him because he's able to convince them Obama is screwing up the country and ANYTHING would be better, but that's not germane to my point.
The GOP base/what would become the TP set wasn't thrilled with McCain in 2008 either - but strictly on voting records, John McCain has one hell of a better case to be labeled 'conservative' than does Mitt Romney.
My take, at least, is that they seem genuinely more OK with Romney than they ever did with McCain.
Why?
I think it goes back to that rather infamous Q&A McCain did where he answered the 'Obama's an Arab' question from that old lady... Some politicians would laugh it off, others would stumble trying to respond without backing off the attack -- McCain immediately and resoundingly refuted it. He rather infamously refused to use Jeremiah Wright in attack ads as well. Add to that, on the few issues where McCain deviated from GOP orthodoxy, he didn't do it quietly. He called it being a 'maverick'. Party stalwarts call it being a 'RINO'.
Would Romney respond the same way in 2012? Or would he make a birther joke (and then, of course, after getting the soundbite Fox can put on endless loop, have the campaign issue a "Of course Governor Romney yada yada" statement)?
It's not even so much about 'pandering' to something the GOP believes in - it's just the idea of beating the crap out of the other side, even if it means taking shots below the belt.
I'm not saying there isn't a sizable and growing chunk of this thinking in the Democratic party - there certainly is... but really, Obama didn't run that way in either the 2008 primary or GE. Don't get me wrong - Obama can absolutely throw sharp elbows, but I think it would be fair to say that every debate doesn't have to be a death match and again.
One of the single biggest criticisms about Obama from the left is that he's been too interested in bipartisanship.
Colin Powell, I think, would try to be a consensus builder. Beyond a few litmus test items - maybe abortion, maybe 'taxes' (however you define that) - I think it's really more the idea that you will make the election a match to the death; you don't compromise with the other side regardless of the issue, you pummel their opinion out of existence.
Maybe Obama's unique personal story allowed him to avoid that in 2008. However, even in 2004, the guy who would stomp the crap out of the 'other side' was Howard Dean, not John Kerry.
Ignoring that Obama would have picked his successor, it would have been fun to see Clarence Thomas declare this year, just to watch liberals' heads explode. Olbermann and Matthews might have spontaneously combusted right on air.
White conservatives, meanwhile, would have lined up behind Thomas in record time, putting to rest this nonsensical notion that white Republicans won't nominate or vote for blacks.
You're going to insult me for someone else's poorly-written sentence?
This is probably the most significant factor if not the only one(or even a majority of the motivation). A lot of politics is tribal, and we see even in sports that solidarity with those like us or near us is a large factor in things like who we cheer for. The desire to beat "the other side" is pretty innate, as it would very much be to the benefit of groups to be this way (in an evolutionary sense).
It was the Lincoln Memorial, and if one were to compile a list of Nixon's Greatest Surreal Moments, that might have made the top 5. Here's how TIME described it:
At one point he tried talking to the demonstrators about the Washington Redskins. That one didn't go over too well, either.
I don't think they were worried he would run in 2004. I think they wanted to make sure they cut his Achilles heal so that he wouldn't become the leader of the party or strong central figure of the party or run in 2008. They basically didn't want him to be a force in the party so they used him to a)get what they wanted in terms of the Iraq war, and b)any of the blowback for the lies would land squarely on Powell and permanently damage him.
Right, but I'm not sure why a black Mitt Romney couldn't have done just as well. If Herman Cain was less of a buffoon and had been a governor of a state somewhere, I don't see why the Republican primary electorate wouldn't have been willing to vote for him.
Don't you realize just how big an "if" that is? You're talking hypotheticals, but I'm trying to think of real black people who aren't batshit crazy, who would now have the proverbial Chinaman's chance of winning the GOP nomination. The problem is that any black Republican you can name is either batshit crazy or, like Powell or Rice, too "liberal" ever to be seriously considered.
Powell, in the wake of his Gulf War aura, might have had a chance in 1996 or 2000 (more likely 1996), if he'd chosen to run. In 1996, the Republicans were pretty damn conservative, but they hadn't yet been taken over by the Ayn Rand and Arpaio cults lock, stock and barrel. Unfortunately that day is now past, and what they're left with is a handful of clown candidates who pop up now and then, well described by Sam above as "optics over substance". They might win a House seat once in a while in the perfect situation, but get nominated for president? Don't hold your breath.
I mean, I'll ask Ray - how is that even legal?
I think it's much more likely it would have been their condomns that would have been exploding, at the thought of running against Clarence Thomas.
Silly rabbit Ray doesn't do personal attacks, just ask him.
Anyway don't feel bad you are in good company.
Funny though. I count Dan as a friend too and his recent posts were jarring. I guess I owe him the same courtesy that I extend sAM.
To all concerned, the Bradley Manning references (particularly Dan's anger) led me to seek more information and I have to say I understand the anger.
La plus ca change la plus le meme chose.
Very clever, but Libya, which is situated in North Africa, is a thousand miles closer to the Middle East than Afghanistan, which is in South/Central Asia.
The discussion was whether the white GOP establishment would get behind a black GOP candidate, not whether Dems or independents would like said candidate. Few people are more popular among white right-wingers than Clarence Thomas.
I don't think the U.S. armed the Libyan rebels, they provided coverage fire from the air, but it was mostly Europe that decided to have an adventure in Africa.
And I'll say this, the next country we invade(I.E. put troops in the ground), we might as well annex and make it a part of the U.S., because this whole thing where we just topple the existing government and then try to play middle men just gets the U.S. into trouble with no profit in mind. If we're going to play empire, lets just fully assume the role.
I'm sure that if "popularity" ruled the GOP primaries, Romney would have won New Hampshire, Massachusetts and maybe Michigan. But survey after survey showed that a big number of Republican primary voters wanted to pick the candidate whom they thought would have the best chance of winning in November, and that critical mass of voters was what put Romney over the top. The Tea Party mau-maus might be able to hold an establishment candidate's feet to the fire and force him to toe the wingnut line as rigidly as any Soviet era apparatchik, but they've got more sense than to nominate someone whom they know would have zero chance of winning the general election. And that includes every one of the current crop of Republican African American heroes. These folks may be crazy, but they're not that stupid.
Out of happiness? Thomas is further to the right than any of the GOP primary contenders, with the possible exception of Bachmann. He also notoriously does not like public speaking. And, as you noted, it would give Obama to move the court significantly to the left, even if he appointed a moderate. Liberals (like conservatives) prefer to be in power, and wouldn't really give a damn about whatever hypocrisy some would claim they were expressing.
senator mccain has been very consistent on his positions. he has been pushing the administration on syria for some time.
and i won't smirk about how folks said the tea party would do this and the tea party would do that and i gently explained the tea party wouldn't do squat because the tea party is driven to get the president out of office (via the ballot box that is)
Just read it.
I'd say yikes.
I'm not entirely thrilled with Obama on Afghanistan, but it's more because I want to see a greater, quicker commitment to GTFO than the converse. The Iranian talk is just nuts. On Syria, I'm pretty sure we're already covertly arming the Syrian rebels whether we're admitting it or not. I can see both sides of that idea.
Won't matter, though.... but it concerns me so many people are prepared to double down on the disastrous foreign policies of the mid-aughts without much concern.
"I admit...Jesse can give a heck of a sermon...and he rhymes well..."
Talk to Repubs every week, Harv--even at a college. Andy plays pool with guys who make you sound like Nelson Rockefeller.
And I expect that everybody on both sides of the aisle as well as the Libertarians floating happily above the entire building would welcome your participation in this thread.
Tomorrow from 6:00 AM to 6:00 AM Friday morning, TCM is presenting its greatest day of the year: 24 straight hours of Warren William movies. Anyone not familiar with this greatest of all Hollywood cads, crooks and con men doesn't have a clue as to what they've missed, but here's a chance for you laggards to catch up. These are merely the highlights, but as you can see, the highlights make up practically the entire day. There's not a clinker in the entire carload.
6:00 AM Bedside (1934) A fake doctor sets up a lucrative high-society practice Cast: Warren William, Jean Muir, Allen Jenkins. Dir: Robert Florey. BW-66 min
7:15 AM First Hundred Years, The (1938) A working woman doesn't want to give up her career when she marries. Cast: Robert Montgomery, Virginia Bruce, Warren William. Dir: Robert Thorpe. BW-74 min
8:30 AM Wives Under Suspicion (1938) A D.A.'s personal life mirrors the love-triangle murder he's prosecuting. Cast: Warren William, Gail Patrick, Constance Moore. Dir: James Whale. BW-69 min
9:45 AM Mouthpiece, The (1932) A crusading DA goes into private practice and succumbs to the temptations of corruption. Cast: Warren William, Sidney Fox, Aline MacMahon. Dir: James Flood. BW-86 min
11:15 AM Skyscraper Souls (1932) A ruthless financier will stop at nothing to control a 100-story office building. Cast: Warren William, Maureen O'Sullivan, Verree Teasdale. Dir: Edgar Selwyn. BW-99 min
1:00 PM Three on a Match (1932) A woman's childhood friends try to rescue her from gangsters. Cast: Joan Blondell, Bette Davis, Ann Dvorak. Dir: Mervyn LeRoy. BW-63 min
2:15 PM Match King, The (1932) An ambitious young man corners the market on matches, then faces the destruction of his empire. Cast: Warren William, Lili Damita, Glenda Farrell. Dir: Howard Bretherton, William Keighley. BW-79 min
3:45 PM Mind Reader, The (1933) A fake mentalist tries to go straight, only to end up in jail. Cast: Warren William, Constance Cummings, Allen Jenkins. Dir: Roy Del Ruth. BW-70 min
5:00 PM Gold Diggers Of 1933 (1933) Three chorus girls fight to keep their show going and find rich husbands. Cast: Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, Dick Powell. Dir: Mervyn LeRoy. BW-98 mins
6:45 PM Times Square Playboy (1936) When he comes to New York for a wedding, an out-of-towner makes trouble for all concerned. Cast: Warren William, June Travis, Barton MacLane. Dir: William McGann. BW-62 min
8:00 PM Lady For A Day (1933) (1933) A gangster helps an old apple-vendor pose as a society woman to fool her visiting daughter. Cast: May Robson, Warren William, Guy Kibbee. Dir: Frank Capra. BW-96 min
11:45 PM Employees' Entrance (1933) An unscrupulous department store manager stops at nothing to get what he wants. Dir: Roy Del Ruth Cast: Warren William, Loretta Young, Wallace Ford. BW-75 mins,
1:15 AM Case of the Howling Dog, The (1934) Perry Mason gets caught between feuding neighbors who claim to be married to the same woman. Cast: Warren William, Mary Astor, Allen Jenkins. Dir: Alan Crosland. BW-74 mins (NOTE: This was the first screen adaptation of the Perry Mason character.)
2:45 AM Lone Wolf Spy Hunt, The (1939) A spy forces a reformed jewel thief to crack the safe where plans for an anti-aircraft gun are stored. Cast: Warren William, Ida Lupino, Rita Hayworth. Dir: Peter Godfrey. BW-71 mins
4:00 AM Arsene Lupin Returns (1938) A reformed jewel thief helps detectives track down a criminal. Cast: Melvyn Douglas, Virginia Bruce, Warren William. Dir: George Fitzmaurice. BW-81 min
Absolutely.
This is what concerns me.
I wouldn't be voting for Romney if he had the same foreign policy as Obama but the same domestic policies differences -- but to be perfectly honest, it's only the foreign policy that scares me.
Foreign policy would be an area where I really wish I could believe Romney is just tacking to the 'proper' side of the partisan divide, but it's actually one area where I honestly believe he's a true believer (or perhaps, just doesn't care enough about it to do much more than turn it over to the last crew that held court when his party was previously in power).
i am anti-political thread. i stopped by to see what was going on and was taken aback by the just plain silly things being written about the party. there is some real howard dean level nonsense
i will skip it to minimize any further accusations of hypocrisy.
but if someone wants facts versus donna brazille like fantasy just let me know
I think that depends a lot on congress and what Mitt Romney would ultimately turn out to be -- some form of what he was during his Massachusetts political career wouldn't bother me.
However, foreign policy was never a part of that career - and two things concern me: He seems to be relying on the exact same folks who I thought had already been thoroughly discredited to advise him in this area; and, foreign policy is actually one area that a President - for good or ill - can actually do a lot of things regardless of what sort of congress he has.
Hey, I get it -- the election is about the economy... but we're still going to have a foreign policy next year, and I would have just hoped whatever the domestic policy outcomes, we could be assured that lessons had been learned over the last 10 years. Everything about Mitt Romney's foreign policy statements and his foreign policy advisers says otherwise.
Well, wouldn't they be very big for Herbert Hoover as well? who's probably by far the most successful busniessmen to ever succeded in getting elected (of course he would end up royally screwing all the people rich and poor)
Oh we absolutely armed the Libyan rebels, whether directly or by proxy. I have a real hard time finding any fault in how Libya went down. I think it was pitch-perfect foreign policy.
I'm not a non-interventionist by any means. I just think neocon geopolitical theory is madness.
I would like to see BHO nominate Michelle, just to see everybody's heads explode.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main