News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

[Lich-Loved]

I heard that Fox is working up a CARE package to deliver nuclear weapons technology to Iran to keep the rioting down and keep the hardliners in charge in an effort to cover up for Reagan's ineptitude.

[Username17]

I heard that Fox is working up a CARE package to deliver nuclear weapons technology to Iran to keep the rioting down and keep the hardliners in charge in an effort to cover up for Reagan's ineptitude.

I understand that this is supposed to be a joke, based on how totally out-there it is. But honestly, it's not that far fetched. Except for the nuclear weapons part. While the conservatives are constantly mewling about how they want a "strong nation" what they actually want is a nation that is constantly fighting adversaries. Not the same thing at all. If they wanted a strong nation they wouldn't use the concept of "tax and spend" as if it was an insult.

If Iran actually became a secular socialist nation like India they would become useless as an enemy, something that would be a foreign policy disaster for the people clamoring for forever war. But of course, not even Dick Cheney actually wants hostile foreign powers to get nuclear weapons. Oh sure, he wants Americans to die in attacks from foreign powers, and he has said as much on TV. But he doesn't want the world destroyed - that's where he keeps all his stuff. Honestly, that's the one thing that makes the Rumsfelds of the world less dangerous than the Pat Robertsons. Pat Robertson actually does want the world destroyed because then Jesus will give him dominion of Heaven.

-Username17

[Prak]

But of course, not even Dick Cheney actually wants hostile foreign powers to get nuclear weapons. Oh sure, he wants Americans to die in attacks from foreign powers, and he has said as much on TV.

Eh? source? and how clear is it that he wants it? I recall Kerry slipping in a statement that I though very clearly implied an intent to bring in the draft back when he was running... though I don't remember what it was that he said... anything like that?

[PhoneLobster]

Never is anyone so apathetic as when things are going their way. You forget that you need to fight to stay still when all is gravy.

They already did the apathetic thing in the last election when all their candidates were banned by the hard liner clerics. They didn't bother turning up, indeed there was an active boycott of the election, less than 40% of the electorate turned up and the hard liners STILL only scraped into power.

They had candidates again this election, not AS reformist as the old ones, but the only horse the clerics would allow them to run.

These people understand they need to actually go out and vote to win elections, and since things legislatively have NOT been going their way since the last bloodless hardliner coupe they certainly aren't sitting around in complacent security.

[Gelare]

How on Earth is anyone surprised that Ahmashootprotestersinthefaceajad rigged the election? I mean, did anyone actually expect him to do things legitimately? Why did news agencies even bother to put up stories about how great it is that Iran is holding democratic elections, when any braindead crustacean could tell them that it wasn't going to happen?

[Username17]

But of course, not even Dick Cheney actually wants hostile foreign powers to get nuclear weapons. Oh sure, he wants Americans to die in attacks from foreign powers, and he has said as much on TV.

Eh? source? and how clear is it that he wants it? I recall Kerry slipping in a statement that I though very clearly implied an intent to bring in the draft back when he was running... though I don't remember what it was that he said... anything like that?

Like Everything he has ever said. Pat Robertson is a dangerous loon. But the really appalling thing about it, is that his abhorrent ideas aren't actually that out of sync with the "normal" views of the rapture cult. Ask Jack Chick if setting off a nuclear bomb on the US State Department to usher in room for a new Christian Theocracy would be a good idea.

-Username17

[Prak]

But of course, not even Dick Cheney actually wants hostile foreign powers to get nuclear weapons. Oh sure, he wants Americans to die in attacks from foreign powers, and he has said as much on TV.

Eh? source? and how clear is it that he wants it? I recall Kerry slipping in a statement that I though very clearly implied an intent to bring in the draft back when he was running... though I don't remember what it was that he said... anything like that?

Like Everything he has ever said. Pat Robertson is a dangerous loon. But the really appalling thing about it, is that his abhorrent ideas aren't actually that out of sync with the "normal" views of the rapture cult. Ask Jack Chick if setting off a nuclear bomb on the US State Department to usher in room for a new Christian Theocracy would be a good idea.

-Username17

holy shit. Though I was actually asking about the Dick Cheney part... I had no trouble believing that Pat was stupid enough to say shit like that, but... c'mon, Dick can't be so stupid, can he?

[Grek]

http://fr.tinypic.com/player.php?v=95o7wh&s=5

It makes me cry and die a little inside. It's a protester getting shot in Iran.

[Cynic]

How on Earth is anyone surprised that Ahmashootprotestersinthefaceajad rigged the election? I mean, did anyone actually expect him to do things legitimately? Why did news agencies even bother to put up stories about how great it is that Iran is holding democratic elections, when any braindead crustacean could tell them that it wasn't going to happen?

Let's get one thing straight, Ahmadinejad does not rig the elections in Iran. He has the possibility to do so. But who will ultimately do so? Let us first look at a few things first. He has power. But who has more power? He answers to others who have condemned him in Iran. But the condemnation is more like a tut-tut-tut now.

So who has more power? The man who holds the post called Supreme leader of Iran. The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hossein Khomeini. Ali Khamein or A.K to those who know him. No, seriously, Khomeini, controls the military, has ye, nay powers over judiciary, executive, religious, parliamentary branches. and he gets to cull people out before a post comes up for election. You think HE can't right an election? Also, he is the grand leader of the Islamic faith in Iran and possibly (I'm not sure on this part) surrounding regions. If you aren't a reformist that is. So whatever he says goes. He says jump, seismologists try to find out where on the richter scale it's going to be this time.

[Ganbare Gincun]

holy shit. Though I was actually asking about the Dick Cheney part... I had no trouble believing that Pat was stupid enough to say shit like that, but... c'mon, Dick can't be so stupid, can he?

You haven't been paying very much attention to American politics over the last 8 years since the Reagan years, have you?

[Ganbare Gincun]

So who has more power? The man who holds the post called Supreme leader of Iran. The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hossein Khomeini. Ali Khamein or A.K to those who know him.

Khamenei may be a very influential religious and political figure in Iran, but I don't think he's the one calling the shots anymore. I suspect that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been running Iran from behind the scenes for quite some time now and they are well on their way to shifting the country from a theocracy to a military dictatorship. Ahmadinejad is a former member of this organization (as are approximately 33% of the Iranian Parliament) and I believe that he would have been elected to the Presidency regardless of whether or not he obtained Khomeini's endorsement. There would have been some prestigious cleric ready to step forward and vouch for Ahmadinejad at the urging of the IRG. But you don't become the Grand Ayatollah unless you're a very shrewd politician - I think Khamenei sees the writing on the wall and is more then willing to work with the IRG to secure a comfortable position in the new regime, but is doing so in such a way that if the shit hits the fan, he can distance himself from the IRG and their accomplices.

[PhoneLobster]

By the content of the post there I'm not entirely sure that you understand that the unelected Guardian Council (all clerics) is effectively the ultimate decision maker in Iran, by law and by it's strong (and corrupt) ties.

I linked to Jaun Cole because he is an expert and he knows what he is talking about. When he says the guardian council honestly didn't predict their man's electoral loss and at the eleventh hour rang up their cronies in the government department managing the election and told them "just rig it bitches" then I suspect his suspicions are very very accurate.

And considering that seems to be the opinion held by the majority of Iran and expressed clearly and directly through their statements of protest. Well, I'm also assuming those guys have a fair handle on what is happening too.

In the end who rigged it is largely inconsequential, (even if it almost certainly wasn't the man who won the election himself), the result is the problem, and the entire faction is at fault, corrupt, undemocratic and nasty as all hell.

Of course interestingly it is EXACTLY the sort of government structure and political system that Christian conservatives would like to implement in the USA so there must be something in that...

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think there's something to be said for the Western media's role in downplaying (or ignoring) popular support for Amadinejad before the election.

[Cynic]

I think there's something to be said for the Western media's role in downplaying (or ignoring) popular support for Amadinejad before the election.

Well, Let's take this side as well. How much can the western media know? Even as idiotic as the UN pollsters are who stand in each country to judge how fair and judicious each vote system was, they are still an unbiased measure.

Well we can talk of it as a western measure because it was dictated by western standards of democracy and all that. But let's not go there.

But Iran isn't completely allowing the UN pollsters into all the polling stations. So the western media doesn't get a good view.

THe media is already biased from their own misconceptions. Now throw in a lack of information and you are fubared to all

So let's go from there.

The supposedly most neutral of sources like NPR or BBC say that Iranians love the man. I talk to Iranians on the street they hate the man. Of course, I live in another country, of course. There is of course a reformist movement that seems to be a minority for one of three reasons. One, they are suppressed by force, the guns and the death is a bitch - man. Two, Everything has a flip side but as I suggested earlier, Khomeini, Ahmadinajad, or whoever else the invisible hand behind the Islamic Republic of Iran actually does smile his twinkle smile and they all go aww look how cute the widdle baby is. The third one is it's the fokken martians.


But no, seriously, if they fans of Ahmadinejad, then let them be fans and I'm not going to discount it. Yes, on this side of the world and outside Iran to a certain extent there is distrust of the man because of his stances on the Holocaust, and maybe nuclear weapons, and other issues. But inside the country, he's bringing in revenue with his decisions and who knows what else he might be doing. He might like Fresh Prince of Bel Air and he broadcasts it for them.


Good for him I say, shrug

[CatharzGodfoot]

...there is distrust of the man because of his stances on the Holocaust, and maybe nuclear weapons, and other issues.

His stance on the Holocaust is reprehensible but understandable given Middle East politics. At least he isn't killing Iranian Jews. His stance on nuclear weapons (they're bad) is in conflict with with the U.S.'s (they're good for US), but I'm not sure why it would bother most people.

[PhoneLobster]

But no, seriously, if they fans of Ahmadinejad, then let them be fans and I'm not going to discount it...Good for him I say, shrug

You didn't read a word of the things Jaun Cole said did you?

No need to read what an expert on the region with actual ongoing contacts from the country has to say.

You just form your own opinion in a damn vacuum of information...

[Crissa]

It wasn't that he wasn't expected to win.

It's just that the vote total don't jive with any past trends or pre-election polls or post-election polls of rural towns.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

Apparently our right to a fair trial does not include new evidence gathered after the trial. Or invented. Or whatever.

Washington Monthly[/url]]* The U.S. Supreme Court, in another 5-4 ruling (natch), rules that "convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty."

[Starmaker]

Apparently our right to a fair trial does not include new evidence gathered after the trial. Or invented. Or whatever.

There could be a problem with petty crimes, when people are found guilty of, say, stealing a sandwich and then try to "get even" with the government by spending as much of taxpayer money as possible. But rape and attempted murder? WTF.

But several aspects of the Osborne case did not make the defendant a sympathetic one, so perhaps his case was not the ideal vehicle for those hoping that the nation’s highest court would find a constitutional right to “post-conviction” DNA testing — that is, after the normal appeals have been exhausted.

When fairytale elfs imagine "a person wrongly accused of a crime" they imagine someone lily-pure set up by cat-murdering monsters. But the fact is many wrongly accused are criminals who just did not commit this particular crime. And when the truth clashes with fantasy, the elfs are suddenly willing to fuck trials and just roast everyone.

When the case was argued on March 2, Kenneth M. Rosenstein, an assistant state attorney general, said that an Alaska law governing post-conviction relief could allow Mr. Osborne access to DNA evidence if he would swear to his innocence.

Now, I see all the problems inherent in the practice of assigning a softer sentence to people who confess (when they think they're likely to be found guilty whether they actually are or not), but swearing to one's innocence? Aren't defendants, whether actually guilty or not, supposed to be always pushing for innocence? Or does a person who swears to innocence and is found guilty serve more jail time?

Here, Justice Scalia observed, a listener would expect to hear the words “my innocence.” But the defendant did not say that, saying instead “either my guilt or innocence.

I never understood how people can go on record saying bullshit like this and manage to hold the office. It doesn't just make me cry, it causes me physical pain.

My sister is a mod on a private WoW server. Most GMs there are retarded, and the one who's not doesn't give a flying fuck about the state of affairs. So when a ban appeal comes up, she has to first investigate the matter normally and then present it in the perverse bullshit fashion this Justice Scalia seems to be fond of, with logical fallacies and quotes totally out of context, to make the GMs agree. (And then she says I'm an insensitive fuck when I refuse to listen her recounting yet another won case.)

[Cynic]

But no, seriously, if they fans of Ahmadinejad, then let them be fans and I'm not going to discount it...Good for him I say, shrug

You didn't read a word of the things Jaun Cole said did you?

No need to read what an expert on the region with actual ongoing contacts from the country has to say.

You just form your own opinion in a damn vacuum of information...

Do you know what an If...Then statement is? No? Ok, let me explain it to you.

IF such an action or set of actions happens THEN let this other action or set of action happen.

Capiche?

I've taken in Juan Cole and I find him and Global Americana Institute a good measure in this world.

I might not have been clear in my other posts.

I wasn't letting my personal politics to come into this post very easily because I'm not still certain where I stand on Iran. It is fvcked up to the core. But sometimes I believe things need to be fvcked up to a certain degree to let someone to notice it and have it be fixed. Now that in itself is a sad state of affairs because we as a world don't do good for goodness sakes. We see shit and and we try to clean it hoping there might be something underneath.

But going back to Iran, Yes, I formed an opinion on my own to a degree maybe. I used Juan cole and prior knowledge that might be out dated. But Juan Cole's sources were for the most part (and I say most western media sources which while not totally discountable, others (including myself) have casted doubt upon their bias. Al-jazeera america is kinda one of them to whatever you say about them. it's filled with editors and producers from the western world. I like them. I like NYT, too. I have nyt on e-mail alert. I don't if you can get the former on email. But, look I"m just playing both sides of the coins. I'm a fvcking fvck, if you want to call me that. But I don't have the credentials of any of the sources of Jaun Cole's sources which make them legitimate. I've already told you why some of them will be discounted. The deepthroats are cools but hard to look at when one of them quotes or talks about Juan Cole within the entry.

[PhoneLobster]

I'm a fvcking fvck, if you want to call me that.

I might have to, because all I can read from your rambling gibberish just then is "I don't know anything but I both defend and back peddle from my earlier statements simultaneously, also, people are shit, that is stupid and irrelevant but needed to be added to my glorious claims"

The hard liners in Iran enjoy the sort of electoral popularity of George W. Bush, at the end of his reign of incompetence and evil! We know that for a fact, and Jaun Cole just so happens to quote the figures, dates and electoral results that explain why we know that for a fact.

This isn't a thing you can just call "What is truth anyway? Maybe a miracle of theocracy happened!" on. Which you are doing. Adding "Maybe" doesn't make your argument any less stupid, it just makes it even more worthless.

[Cynic]

I'm a fvcking fvck, if you want to call me that.

I might have to, because all I can read from your rambling gibberish just then is "I don't know anything but I both defend and back peddle from my earlier statements simultaneously, also, people are shit, that is stupid and irrelevant but needed to be added to my glorious claims"

The hard liners in Iran enjoy the sort of electoral popularity of George W. Bush, at the end of his reign of incompetence and evil! We know that for a fact, and Jaun Cole just so happens to quote the figures, dates and electoral results that explain why we know that for a fact.

This isn't a thing you can just call "What is truth anyway? Maybe a miracle of theocracy happened!" on. Which you are doing. Adding "Maybe" doesn't make your argument any less stupid, it just makes it even more worthless.

Again I ask, what is the ethos of the sources that Juan Cole uses. Just saying that he has sources is fvxk, dude. I can build a website this week and say I have sources. We discussed our mistrust of western media and the bias that comes with them. Most of the sources that were on that page were from western media or reporters on the field who were stationed from western media outlets. Check it out. Do some independent research. It's not operating in a vacuum.

So now as the good Colonel would say --
""Get down and give me infinity.""

A no prize for the kiddie who gets the reference.

[PhoneLobster]

He is referencing directly to things like actual Iranian election results you gibbering moron.

"I question the sources of an expert in the field, including sources as questionable as "history", and insert my own baseless opinion as a substitute!"

Great line you have going there. It's very typical of the much talked about "anti expertise" mode of thought very popular with the modern type idiot.

[Cynic]

He is referencing directly to things like actual Iranian election results you gibbering moron.

"I question the sources of an expert in the field, including sources as questionable as "history", and insert my own baseless opinion as a substitute!"

Great line you have going there. It's very typical of the much talked about "anti expertise" mode of thought very popular with the modern type idiot.

Well, the actual Iranian results like several other results in several other countries including our own country have been challenged.

Does that mean each and every one is it a fake? I'm just asking a question? It's a hypothetical. You can throw as many insults my way and I'll be as cool as cool can be. Until I go postal that is. Let's see how long that is. Anyone talking bets? Seriously I need cash. Comeone I'm trying to get on disability.

[PhoneLobster]

Oh I see... so the Guardian council has been creating fake election results to confuse us all along!

A grand conspiracy indeed, starting over a decade ago, they (falsely) gave a vast and growing majority of votes in several elections to the opposed reformists. Along with basically the entirety of the elected government.

Then they pretended they were scared of the reformists and using George Bush as a villain banned all reformists from running for election, not because the reformists might win (because their support was fake and given to them by their enemy's control over elections!), but rather merely as a setup years in advance for their latter electoral prank.

THEN they pretended to make some compromise to a (pretend) vast ground swell of dissatisfaction with the removal of reformist candidates.

So they let some reformists run again, in a period when their guy experienced a number of events widely believed by the electorate to damage his popularity even further... (but this too is another trick!)

... and only NOW they stopped rigging the results thus letting their guy win fair and square! Because all along they were actually working against him, just to make him a surprise dark horse victor on a much much later date!

That is SO much more reasonable than the scenario in which they actually had relatively fair elections, disliked the public's choices, banned opposition, were forced to let some back, thought they could take the election after their earlier "ban the lot of them" scare tactics, had their pet lunatic perform incredibly poorly on the campaign trail, failed, panicked and rigged the polls on election night.

You, are, an, idiot.