“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.
He just went after Obama for 'ignoring' the Simpson-Bowles recommendations.
In case anyone forgot, Paul Ryan was on the Simpson-Bowles Commission... and Paul Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations that Obama supposedly ignored.
I mean, come on...
Oh, and We can do this!
Why, is Romney all neue-metal or something? Ryan lost the aggro-political metal votes already this cycle, he's only going to have screamo left.
Do you really want your VEEP candidate to name drop Jack Kemp?
I met Kemp at a Young Republican event when I was 14. Him reminding me of my dick head grandfather basically started me asking myself what the hell I was doing.
I'm not so sure "petulance" is a particularly good excuse for such an utterly nonsensical attack.
...and how does that line of reasoning make sense? Ryan's own budget relies on the same Obamacare numbers. Did Obama make Obamacare off-limits in the budget Ryan created, too?
Unless you live in Mali.
Fair enough, but these aren't extemporaneous comments. This is a prepared speech that presumably undergoes multiple vettings.
All politicians spin and all politicians do things for political reasons, but this just seems to rise to a level of audacity that boggles my mind.
Blitzer: So there he is, the republican vice presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of republicans here certainly republicans all across the country were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech. Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked seven or eight points I’m sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I’m sure they will. As far as mitt romney’s campaign is concerned, paul ryan on this night delivered.
Burnett: That’s right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He’s a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate.
FOR ##### SAKE! YOU'RE THE ####### PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THE FACT CHECKING!
Ryan beat up Obama so badly, the Secret Service probably has him in handcuffs.
Eh, I don't have a problem with this. Tomorrow is the time to start talking about what was said, tonight you talk about how he said it. Its no different than a state of the union address. The night of its all about the crowd and the response and whether the speech worked. People start digging into issues the next day. From what I've seen CNN won't have a problem arguing facts with Paul Ryan.
Ryan beat up Obama so badly, the Secret Service probably has him in handcuffs.
Republicans also thought Sarah Palin did great 4 years ago. No real shocker here.
Palin did do great 4 years ago. It was everything she said between then and the election that sunk her. I don't figure these are about winning votes, but consolidating and exiting the base. Palin did a fine job of that.
I think that's more a function of Gaddafi's 40+ years of drawing mercenary armies from up and down Africa for a wide variety of purposes. I assure you - over that time, he didn't just keep them parked in Tripoli - and it's hardly the first time one of Gaddafi's frankensteins got loose (see for example, the Janjaweed militias, the genocide in Darfur and its origins in Gaddafi's old Islamic Legion).
Ask Sierra Leone, ask Chad, ask Sudan, ask Egypt, ask Tanzania, ask Liberia.
If you want to argue for involvement in Mali, we can discuss that - but Gaddafi was an unchecked debacle throughout his career for Africa.
No foreign policy 'success' happens without problems - there is no perfect ending. Pitch-perfect means the costs were appropriate, support was as close to universal as possible, and the outcome more favorable than the status quo.
The difference is now - he's not creating any more mercenary armies that are either to be used in furtherance of Gaddafi's dreams of a united Africa under his banner, a tight alliance of friendly autocrats, or an armed and dangerous force turned loose because they no longer fit in his plans.
That's certainly fine - I don't expect minutia dug into immediately...
But frankly, if silly little private citizen me who just likes to stay well-informed knew as soon as he said it that the Simpsons-Bowles attack was ridiculous -- you'd think the people who cover this stuff professionally would feel comfortable, you know, doing their job -- even if it meant spoiling the special moment.
Just like Vinny Castilla, power hitter.
Nah. Ryan was shadow-boxing with his multiple lies, so Obama didn't have to worry. Example:
The plant he's talking about closed in December 2008, before Obama took office.
Ryan knows that, but he still peddles the lie.
Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate in 2008 when the bailouts were crafted?
Joe, you should get a job on Ryan's speech writing team... Because whether you're talking about TARP or the 2008 auto bailouts - Ryan also voted for them.
I don't get it. There's baseball on. Big night for the Angels!
Exactly, the speeches at the convention are just bunches of empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean anything.
It has been a very good day of baseball. Rangers, Yankees, and Baltimore lost while the Rays and A's won.
Edit: oops. Forgot about the bridge to nowhere, but let's just say everyone gets a freebie.
Mali was a democracy when Gaddafi was in power. No longer. (And no one really seems to care.) Removing Gaddafi was not in our national interest but we got rid of him anyway. Fine, but removing Assad is in our national interest but we have done little to nothing. By the way, the death count in Syria far exceeds the number of those who perished in Libya.
I ordered another drink and tuned out when he said the GOP was the party of "love, not hate."
Tonight John McCain made a fool of himself.
####### John Mcain.
DRUNK!
And there is nothing different between Libya and Syria. They're virtually identical places, situations, and geopolitical issues.
John McCain is deep into his Dr. Strangelove phase. I get though the pushback against the liberal narrative of McCain as the man who has betrayed his true self. That's wish fulfillment. This is his true self. Bombs away, suckers! He's one of the most frightening figures I've ever seen. The neocons seem genuinely crazy to me in that they don't think military action can ever bring bad effects. But McCain in a way; it isn't that he thinks war will work; it's that at this point he drools at the mention of it.
Lassus and I kid each other. You may not be familiar with our history.
Exactly, the speeches at the convention are just bunches of empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean anything.
McCain got a bounce after the convention, even had a narrow lead in some polls, and Palin's speech contributed to that. The problem was that she wasn't as good in some other aspects of the campaign, such as interviews. Does anyone here really think Paul Ryan will have a problem with Katie Couric? Or Joe Biden?
I really wonder about McCain. On the one hand, he says the things he did in response to Michelle Bachmann's idiocy regarding the Muslim State Department person, And then, he says mind-numbing drool like this.
I don't know about him. I do know for certain that I don't trust him for a nanosecond.
The format is utterly incapable of delivering the kind of rhetorical slaughter you imagine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89FbCPzAsRA
Four years ago wasn't so long to forget what a slaughter of the idiots looks like.
And for those who watched, were they playing Tom Sawyer when Rand Paul made his appearance? Nice touch.
People who think Ryan is going to kill Biden at the debates or something are totally delusional, and are getting Joe Biden media caricature mixed up with the real thing. Biden is not my idea of an ideal politician, but he is not going to be rattled by a lightweight phony like PR. Oh, and his speech will be better too. "We Can Do This?" Why not add a "bro" at the end there.
No, but he might have a problem with the fact that he openly champions destroying medicare.
If any female interviewer of childbearing age has the guts to ask Ryan to explain why he (not Romney---I'm talking about you, Mr. Ryan) thinks that she (the interviewer)** should be forced to give birth to the baby of a rapist, then yeah, Paul Ryan may have his Dukakis moment, and he may never recover.
**If the question is posed like that, Ryan's horrific position on abortion becomes immediately expressed in personal terms, not any noble-sounding "right to life" abstraction. If the interviewer poses the question in those terms---and why shouldn't she?---I'd give a pretty penny to watch Ryan's answer.
And to anyone who thinks it'd blow over, do us a favor and pretend you're Ryan on national TV, and tell us how you'd answer such a question, given your previous remarks on rape being just a "method" of conception, and therefore not exempt from abortion restrictions. There's no way to answer that question honestly without digging yourself into a hole that you may never be able to climb out of.
Now I can fully understand why such a scenario would arouse the evasion instinct in Republican defenders, and an even stronger instinct to attack the interviewer. In chess it's known as zugzwang, which loosely translates to "Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide." Nobody likes to be in such a position.
And to anyone who thinks it'd blow over, do us a favor and pretend you're Ryan on national TV, and tell us how you'd answer such a question, given your previous remarks on rape being just a "method" of conception, and therefore not exempt from abortion restrictions. There's no way to answer that question honestly without digging yourself into a hole that you may never be able to climb out of.
bleh, hasn't he changed positions on this? Or he'd say something about how "the ticket" will not oppose abortion for rape victims, or something.
Anyway, I think if you are pro-life then rape exemptions are ########. Either you believe the embryo is a human life or you don't.
I don't actually believe any of that, mind you, but the answer isn't that hard to give and it's entirely consistent with the abortion=murder idea. It's just very few people will actually agree with you when you give that answer. If taking a principled position that very few people agree with is digging a hole for yourself, then I suppose that's a hole you'll have to live with. It's either that or you change principles.
Say it proudly!
People who are pro-life but support a rape exemption are shining a bright light on the fact that the anti-abortion stance isn't about life, it's about punishing sluts.
Paul Ryan didn't start faking being a Deficit Hawk until Obama was in office. Just like the rest of the GOP.
bleh, hasn't he changed positions on this? Or he'd say something about how "the ticket" will not oppose abortion for rape victims, or something.
Of course he has, which is why I expressed my scenario this way. Ryan deserves no wiggle room on the issue.
If any female interviewer of childbearing age has the guts to ask Ryan to explain why he (not Romney---I'm talking about you, Mr. Ryan)
Anyway, I think if you are pro-life then rape exemptions are ########. Either you believe the embryo is a human life or you don't.
I agree, and that's why I'd love to see Ryan express that honest "method of conception" opinion of his in a forum with more exposure than a local Virginia TV station.
----------------------------------------------
The answer is pretty straightforward. While rape is obviously wrong, the child so conceived shouldn't be punished for the rapist's crime. Compelling the mother to bring the child to term is the lesser of two evils.
Again, this is Ryan's position, and I want him to be forced to reiterate it in a forum with the biggest possible audience, and let nature take its course. Any Democrat who wouldn't favor asking this question of Ryan is looking a Secretariat-level gift horse in the mouth.
I don't actually believe any of that, mind you, but the answer isn't that hard to give and it's entirely consistent with the abortion=murder idea. It's just very few people will actually agree with you when you give that answer. If taking a principled position that very few people agree with is digging a hole for yourself, then I suppose that's a hole you'll have to live with. It's either that or you change principles.
Sure, it's an easy answer to give, as long as you don't care that it will personalize the abortion question for women in the starkest way imaginable, and as long as you don't care about the political consequences of the reaction.
I'm not sure the position is insane insofar as it has a perfectly logical consistency. It's just wrong because it's bad public policy. I mean, we can say someone is wrong without calling them insane, right? That's still possible, even on the internet?
As someone in favor of educating the youth about contraception (so I have a leg to stand on), I do find it somewhat galling that abortion is primarily used as a method of contraception. The vast majority of abortions aren't performed because a woman was raped or because a woman's health would be endangered by the pregnancy but because two people failed to use contraceptives. There is a degree to which I find the poor choices galling. I do not find them galling enough to deny people abortions -- again, bad public policy -- but I'm not overly thrilled with the decisions being made that lead up to most abortions.
At the very least, condoms are cheaper than abortions.
Of course, much of the anti-abortion crowd is also the anti-contraception education crowd, so I'm not sure their displeasure is as justified as mine.
And, of course, I wouldn't label these people as sluts. Condemn the sin, not the sinner! Hard to believe the Christians came up with that one, but I certainly believe in that sentiment.
We might be better off with more politicians who cared less about political consequences and more about principles. Actually, we probably wouldn't. I think I tend to prefer policy dilution effect of politicians constantly holding their licked fingers in the air.
You do realize that there is a failure rate for contraceptives right?
Agreed Andy.
'Weekly Journalist' doth protest too much, methinks.
But after last night, who could blame him?
Do you use the same logic with incest? Life of mother?
You seem unfamiliar with the concept of competing interests.
if you really wanted to do away with the 'red tape' you could eliminate about half of state regulations and free up a good many small businessperson.
As I have argued above, the abortion debate is about weighing two factors - the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood rights of the embryo or fetus. Roe and its successors came to a mostly reasonable middle position on this - that at the point of viability, the personhood rights of the fetus trump the rights to bodily autonomy of the woman, unless her health or life is threatened. Before the point of viability, the woman's bodily autonomy is the primary interest that must be protected.
Rape provisions are about regulating women's sexual lives, not about weighing competing interests.
With regards to Obamacare, fixed.
Responsible = Able to afford health insurance.
Irresponsible = Not able to afford health insurance.
I agree 100%.
We stuck our noses in Libya even though it was not in our national interest. As a proximate result of our interference, an African democracy next door has been overthrown.
Meanwhile, over the past year we have refused to provide small arms to opposition forces in Syria, never mind that getting rid of Assad is in our national interest. Meanwhile, the Russians funneled heavy weaponry, including helicopters, to the murderous regime and Iranians sent in military personnel.
This really strikes me as the kind of glee you'll be mocking during the DNC.
Among other considerations, a non-zero number of women develop serious health problems as a result of being pregnant. A non-zero number of women die during childbirth. An argument can be made that while the life created by rape might be innocent, it's immoral to impose such serious health risks on a woman who was raped.
Not all unwanted pregnancies are caused by bad decisions. I apologize if what I posted led you to believe I thought otherwise.
I'm not thrilled with any of those either. I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but it isn't me as I agree with you.
"Don't worry, guys! Next week we have Joe Biden, Charlie Crist, and Sandra Fluke!"
LOL.
He thinks the proper comeback is, "I'm right to be this gleeful, and you will be deservedly mocked." It is certain that the conventions this year will massively boost the Republican ticket and not serve the Democratic ticket at all, for reasons that exist in Joe's brain.
Not nearly to the extent that Obamacare does. The removal of preexisting conditions limitations and the new limitations on insurance companies' ability to charge premiums on risk-based factors makes Obamacare a huge and immoral giveaway to millions of the most irresponsible people in America.
So -
Responsible = Able to afford health insurance.
Irresponsible = Not able to afford health insurance.
And -
Irresponsible = Have a preexisting condition.
Wow.
Do you use the same logic with incest? Life of mother?
You seem unfamiliar with the concept of competing interests.
Well, Joe, perhaps you might want to explain that concept to Rep. Paul Ryan. Up to now it doesn't seem to have registered with him.
What does "intervention" mean, MCoA? Did McCain call for boots on the ground in Syria or simply safe zones and arming the rebels? If the latter, I do not find it "distasteful."
I didn't agree with either Obama or McCain on Libya but only became disgusted when juxtaposed with our feebleness in handling Syria.
Total flimflammery. There's a big difference between a woman who engages in sexual intercourse voluntarily, knowing pregnancy can result, and a woman who is raped.
I understand the point about preexisting conditions (at least, for those who try to game the system by purchasing insurance they could afford only after they get sick), but Obamacare allows employers to give employees monetary incentives (or waiving fines depending on how you look at it) for not smoking, not being overweight, having a certain blood pressure/lipid numbers. That's certainly a step forward.
Part of the solution to the problem of increasing health care costs has to be creating incentives for people to lead healthier lives.
Well, that's me and approximately 1.2 million other Type I diabetecs who are irresponsible for... being born.
Here's something I really someone like Paul Ryan -- who as noted, does not believe in a rape exception -- would answer.
Given that the state has essentially assumed control of a woman's body for 9 months -
1) Would he support government provided and wholly funded prenatal and neonatal care for the rape victim whom the state has chosen to force into a 9 month long health condition. I'm not talking coupons, I'm not talking vouchers, I'm not talking forcing her into a position where on top of carrying around a constant reminder of a extremely traumatic experience she also has to deal with a health insurance company that wants to keep costs as low as possible -- I'm talking wholly provided government health care.
2) Would he support direct government subsidies to the raped woman to compensate her for the time that the government has taken ownership and responsibility for her body? Let's say $25k.
3) Would he support rape exemptions to GOP positions on things like FMLA expansion, worker protections for pregnant women, etc so that if the rape victim has a job, she is guaranteed not to lose it, she is guaranteed not to suffer any career atrophy because of the consequences of the rape, etc.
4) Would he support government funded psychological care to help work through the 9 months she's being forced to bring to term a reminder of the traumatic experience.
Yes, a huge number of preexisting conditions are the result of irresponsibility. Not all preexisting conditions date back to one's birth.
Competing interests here. Should you have been aborted here to save us responsible taxpayers from having to take care of your free-loading ass?
Yeah, some date back to your childhood when you had virtually no control over your diet or health. Some date back to when you were working on the job and in unsafe environments. Some date back to when you were in the military. Not all preexisting conditions are a result of fat unemployed slobs sitting on their sofa eating 6 pizzas a day for 5 years.
Total flimflammery. There's a big difference between a woman who engages in sexual intercourse voluntarily, knowing pregnancy can result, and a woman who is raped.
So why aren't you addressing this to Paul Ryan? Isn't his position on this a bit more important than Matt's or Weekly Journalist's? Or is this just a minor disagreement between you and your VP candidate?
You're misunderstanding the pro-life argument.
Government is preventing the mother from harming a 3rd party (the baby) who has it's own rights, independent of the mother.
Eh. That's an old one. Right-to-lifers who are not against the death penalty feel children are innocent, while people committing crimes are not and have been through a rigorous process to determine their death. I don't really see much hypocrisy there, personally.
Joe, I am asking honestly - are people with true, rigorous pre-existing genetic conditions like juvenile diabetes (which can - rarely but definitively - onset in one's early 20s) just SOL? Type 1 is only one type of disease one can be born with, of course.
Seems to me if a fetus had its own rights, independent of the mother, that it should also be physically independent of the mother as well. If you have to rely on a third party to stay alive you shouldn't get rights that don't take into consideration the third party.
Also, zonk said that the state is effectively taking control of a woman's body for nine months. You didn't actually disagree with him on that count. You simply gave a justification for state control of women's bodies - to protect a third party.
I'm sure it is an old one but I do see hypocrisy. If life is precious and most be protected at all times, even at the risk of a mother's life, then all life is precious and must be protected.
It doesn't make sense to me that you kill a human being because he took a life but it isn't okay to terminate a life that might or might not live to save the life of a person.
Then, a 6-month old wouldn't have rights either.
Not the same thing, snapper. A 6-month old can BE alive outside a womb. A 3-month-old fetus cannot.
Plus where do we draw line on control? If the baby is stillborn does the government launch an investigation to see if the mother did anything negligent? If her diet wasn't up to USDA snuff do they charge her with manslaughter and send her away to prison? If she continues to work at her job and it puts a physical strain on her body that causes a miscarriage do we send her to jail?
Congratulations, this is officially the new all-time funniest comment I've ever read here at the site.
A 6 month old child has to rely on a third party but it doesn't need to be that specific of a third party. A 6 month old doesn't need the exact same person that carried it in their woman for 9 months to live to continue on living.
And you are handling both by claiming everyone with a preexisting condition is irresponsible and want to treat them as such.
What percent of preexisting conditions come from irresponsibility? Should they be handled differently than "good" preexisting conditions?
It doesn't make sense to me that you kill a human being because he took a life but it isn't okay to terminate a life that might or might not live to save the life of a person.
Innocent life is precious. The pro-life argument (at least the Catholic one that I subscribe to) is based on the 6th Commandment, which is properly rendered "Thou shalt not murder". Not all killing is murder. Abortion is murder b/c the child is innocent. Capital punishment is not murder b/c the competent authorities have judged the person guilty. Likewise, killing in wartime, or self-defense is not murder.
Also not, that if the mother needs a medical procedure to save her life, that could or would kill the baby, that is permitted. e.g. chemo therapy, removing a fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy. Direct killing of the baby is what is not permitted.
I honestly have no idea why they have them, I would much rather have another Presidential debate (Which also don't have the impact people think they do, but are much more significant than the VP debates).
Plus where do we draw line on control? If the baby is stillborn does the government launch an investigation to see if the mother did anything negligent? If her diet wasn't up to USDA snuff do they charge her with manslaughter and send her away to prison? If she continues to work at her job and it puts a physical strain on her body that causes a miscarriage do we send her to jail?
I draw the line at taking direct action to kill the baby. If she drinks or smokes or whatever behavior, that is not directly aimed at killing the baby, that's irresponsible, but not criminal.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main