"Some left-leaning"... Err, if you'd know what you were talking about, you'd recognized those names as the "who is who" of reformists in Iran.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with being a little left-leaning. Though it does color your views a bit. Some choice quotes:
"As Seymour Hersh said the other night in the Daily Show, neocons have almost done a coup in America, hijacking all basic principles of this nation for their own corporate interest."
"Tony Soprano's of Iraq is repeating the same things Bush says about Iraq. Everything is fine, no matter what -- until mid-November."
Whether he's inside or outside of Iran, this blogger is getting the same bleak, biased views that I'd get if I listened to the mainstream media.
Bush has weakly supported Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, much like Reagan weakly supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. Neither of those men needed outside support to maintain their grip on power.
Bush supported the Iraq war for pretty much the same reasons John Kerry supported the Iraq war.
"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"
-- John Kerry, November 16, 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks
So some left-leaning Iranian reformists don't like Bush. There are plenty of people who should, in theory, support the liberation of oppressed peoples. And yet they oppose Bush's actions in Iraq (and even the newly democratic Afghanistan).
I believe you'll find that the "Republican" side of issues generally aren't represented in the international media. Heck, Canada won't even let the Fox News Channel in their country, but they're letting Al-Jazeera in. That should tell you something.
"
It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the elections," Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani said in an interview on state television.
"We have not seen any good coming from the Democrats, so we won't be happy if the Democrats win," he said.
So, you see, Iran's government simply considers America "the Great Satan" no matter who wins on November 2. I suggest you change your sig so you look less misinformed in the future.
Turns out that the paper trail is not printed out on the fly. The only thing captured on the fly is an "image" of the voter's ballot. What other kind of data is stored I do not know.
From the Diebold web site:
When a voter casts their ballot using the Diebold touch screen system, the ballot selections are immediately encrypted and stored in multiple locations within the voting station. When stored, the order of cast ballots is scrambled to further insure ballot anonymity. The image of each and every ballot cast on the voting station is captured, and can be anonymously reproduced on standard paper should a hard copy of ballots be required for recount purposes. Once voting concludes at a precinct, a printed election results report is printed as a permanent record of all activity at each voting station. This printed record is used to audit the electronic tabulation of votes conducted during the election canvas process, when final, official election results are reported.
The last thing we need are unverifiable voting machines.
Supposedly these Diebold machines print out paper ballots on the fly. If so, my biggest remaining issue is: does the voter get to see said paper ballot before it's shuttled away to the inside of the machine for storage?
In other news, a box of paperclips was found in a local Republican campaign office. Regional Democrats agreed that said paperclips could only be used for evil.
That quote doesn't suggest that Kerry would pull out of Afghanistan prematurely, and it doesn't suggest that he would "buddy up" with Pakistan. Even if it did, there are more than two candidates.
Huh? Bush didn't "pull out" of Afghanistan, and I don't think Kerry would have either.
I do think that Kerry would have taken the same attitude towards Pakistan that Bush (and previous presidents) did. Heck, if Saddam's Iraq was as cooperative as Musharaff's Pakistan, we wouldn't have invaded!
create an artwork in radioactive glass in a 1000 square mile area surrounding Mecca, as a warning to future generations as to what happens when you let a crazy right-wing religious sect have weapons and terrorist training camps.
Your sig:
The real test of liberal tolerance isn't in how we treat our friends- it's in how we treat our enemies.
What I won't forgive him for is diverting troops, resources and attention away from the area before the job was complete and for buddying up with the #1 global nuclear proliferator (Pakistan) in the process.
"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"
-- John Kerry, November 16, 2001
You, sir, don't seem to have a candidate that represents your views.
His own father is against this adventure in Iraq (said so in his autobiography- he was given the same chance back in 1991 and refused to take it *because* the cost in lives would be higher than worthwhile).
So... because Bush Sr. was against invading Iraq in 1991 (before the Oil-For-Food scandal, mind you), he doesn't support Dubya now?
Well, in that case, I guess John Kerry is a closet Bush supporter:
"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards.
How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"
-- John Kerry, November 16, 2001
Now take your faulty logic and willful blindness and go home.
The funny thing is that since Bush and Kerry are distant cousins, we could take George's siblings, daughters, and parents, and point to them as "Kerry Relatives for Bush."
So getting the UN to fix or drop OFF would have terminated Hussein
Ah yes, because the United Nations and the Europeans were going to repeal a crooked program they were profitting mightily off of.
Newsflash: Saddam Hussein was, rather successfully, bribing people to support lifting the sanctions altogether. That you would put so much faith into such thoroughly bought-off people is, to say the least, naive.
As for deciding to go into Iraq as part of the greater War of Terror, George W. Bush was hardly the only person to suggest it. Quote:
I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards.
How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?
> As for polygamy, I don't think it's going happen. There's no push for it. It would probably poll at around.5% and would be cast quickly.
We're talking about court rulings here, not legislation. Gay-rights groups can lobby Congress and get a pro-gay-marriage law passed, for all I care.
But if they get some judge to rule in favor of them, then that sets a precident. A precident that says the government can't decide who can and cannot get married.
Governmental recognition of marriage is a privilege, not a right -- people were getting married for centuries before any government got involved. Heck, technically it violates the separation of church and state for the gov't to have special consideration for the religious institute of marriage.
> I mean, the wireless isn't "free", taxdollars are paying for it.
Indeed -- and what if I don't like the wireless service the city provides (the service is slow, etc.) I could get cable or DSL internet access, but then I'd essentially be paying for two internet connections.
Then there's the issue of rules. What kind of access restrictions will a city put up? Could you, in this instance, host a web site that gay people find insulting? I've never been banned from a service that I still had to pay for afterwards...
I'll put aside the fact that it was the US invasion that reduced the country to shambles
According to most accounts it was pretty much in shambles since 1991.
The major violence in the country is between insurgents (nationalists and Islamists) and the US forces and its puppet government.
You seem to be bringing a lot of your own prejudices to the table. Regardless, the thing to remember is that the Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for a just cause. They are fighting to establish a theocratic fascist dictatorship. It is quite obviously in the best interests of the Iraqi populace to have the American-backed government win -- no matter the aspersions cast on American motives. Polls in Iraq indicate most of the people support new provisional government, by the way, and consider the insurgents "terrorists".
South Korea was once ruled by a "puppet American government". But look at where South Korea is today.
If they want free elections they would allow all political groups to participate (including hardline anti-US islamists)
Nobody is being blocked from participating in the new Iraqi government. Hell, even al-Sadr is being given a shot, last I knew. The problem with your theory is that most "hardline anti-US islamists" do not want any kind of democracy in Iraq.
they would put in UN observers
Some UN observers are already there. Didn't you see that news story I posted? The biggest reason they're not there in force is because they've been chased out by the islamo-fascists, and thus don't want to participate.
You mean they only close papers in Iraq that incite violence AGAINST THE US OCCUPATION, not violence against the insurgents.
Like I said, they shut down papers directly advocating violence against the government -- both here and in Iraq.
I do, I'm in my 30s so I remember when Saddam Hussien was the West's ally back in the 80s and he gassed Kurds and invaded Iran - all with US backing.
The U.S. backed Iraq against Iran, but by the time Saddam gassed the Kurds in the late 80's, the war was over and the U.S. had withdrawn its limited support.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say there was anything wrong with being a little left-leaning. Though it does color your views a bit. Some choice quotes:
"As Seymour Hersh said the other night in the Daily Show, neocons have almost done a coup in America, hijacking all basic principles of this nation for their own corporate interest."
"Tony Soprano's of Iraq is repeating the same things Bush says about Iraq. Everything is fine, no matter what -- until mid-November."
Whether he's inside or outside of Iran, this blogger is getting the same bleak, biased views that I'd get if I listened to the mainstream media.
Bush has weakly supported Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, much like Reagan weakly supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. Neither of those men needed outside support to maintain their grip on power.
So some left-leaning Iranian reformists don't like Bush. There are plenty of people who should, in theory, support the liberation of oppressed peoples. And yet they oppose Bush's actions in Iraq (and even the newly democratic Afghanistan).
Obviously they read the incomplete Associated Press story.
> It tells me that people are sick of the lies and hate that the USA is spreading.
Well, maybe the American Left will tone it down after the election.
> As opposed to the one sided local media?
I believe you'll find that the "Republican" side of issues generally aren't represented in the international media. Heck, Canada won't even let the Fox News Channel in their country, but they're letting Al-Jazeera in. That should tell you something.
> And most expats will vote for John Kerry anyway
Indeed, because they've been indoctrinated by one-sided foreign media.
Your sig is incorrect, sir. Here is the full quote, not truncated by the Associated Press:
So, you see, Iran's government simply considers America "the Great Satan" no matter who wins on November 2. I suggest you change your sig so you look less misinformed in the future.
The NAACP only looks out for itself by allying with the Democrat party, and thus getting their support and money.
This is opposed to an NAACP which works from principle and is not in bed with any particular political party.
From the Diebold web site:
Supposedly these Diebold machines print out paper ballots on the fly. If so, my biggest remaining issue is: does the voter get to see said paper ballot before it's shuttled away to the inside of the machine for storage?
In other news, a box of paperclips was found in a local Republican campaign office. Regional Democrats agreed that said paperclips could only be used for evil.
Huh? Bush didn't "pull out" of Afghanistan, and I don't think Kerry would have either.
I do think that Kerry would have taken the same attitude towards Pakistan that Bush (and previous presidents) did. Heck, if Saddam's Iraq was as cooperative as Musharaff's Pakistan, we wouldn't have invaded!
So the Associated Press and NBC News disagree. I'd hardly call that a debunking.
The question now is, was the Third Infantry Division the first to arrive at the site? If so, what did they find?
Your sig:
Was that an intentional bit of humor?
You, sir, don't seem to have a candidate that represents your views.
So... because Bush Sr. was against invading Iraq in 1991 (before the Oil-For-Food scandal, mind you), he doesn't support Dubya now?
Well, in that case, I guess John Kerry is a closet Bush supporter:
Now take your faulty logic and willful blindness and go home.
The funny thing is that since Bush and Kerry are distant cousins, we could take George's siblings, daughters, and parents, and point to them as "Kerry Relatives for Bush."
Ah yes, because the United Nations and the Europeans were going to repeal a crooked program they were profitting mightily off of.
Newsflash: Saddam Hussein was, rather successfully, bribing people to support lifting the sanctions altogether. That you would put so much faith into such thoroughly bought-off people is, to say the least, naive.
As for deciding to go into Iraq as part of the greater War of Terror, George W. Bush was hardly the only person to suggest it. Quote:
-- John Kerry, November 16, 2001
Also, Iraq elections are on track, (amongst other news).
> As for polygamy, I don't think it's going happen. There's no push for it. It would probably poll at around .5% and would be cast quickly.
We're talking about court rulings here, not legislation. Gay-rights groups can lobby Congress and get a pro-gay-marriage law passed, for all I care.
But if they get some judge to rule in favor of them, then that sets a precident. A precident that says the government can't decide who can and cannot get married.
Governmental recognition of marriage is a privilege, not a right -- people were getting married for centuries before any government got involved. Heck, technically it violates the separation of church and state for the gov't to have special consideration for the religious institute of marriage.
> are all terms those in power have created to label us.
Bullshiat. People label themselves when left to their own devices. They natually form an "in-group", so they can feel superior to the "out-groupers".
> I mean, the wireless isn't "free", taxdollars are paying for it.
Indeed -- and what if I don't like the wireless service the city provides (the service is slow, etc.) I could get cable or DSL internet access, but then I'd essentially be paying for two internet connections.
Then there's the issue of rules. What kind of access restrictions will a city put up? Could you, in this instance, host a web site that gay people find insulting? I've never been banned from a service that I still had to pay for afterwards...
According to most accounts it was pretty much in shambles since 1991.
You seem to be bringing a lot of your own prejudices to the table. Regardless, the thing to remember is that the Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for a just cause. They are fighting to establish a theocratic fascist dictatorship. It is quite obviously in the best interests of the Iraqi populace to have the American-backed government win -- no matter the aspersions cast on American motives. Polls in Iraq indicate most of the people support new provisional government, by the way, and consider the insurgents "terrorists".
South Korea was once ruled by a "puppet American government". But look at where South Korea is today.
Nobody is being blocked from participating in the new Iraqi government. Hell, even al-Sadr is being given a shot, last I knew. The problem with your theory is that most "hardline anti-US islamists" do not want any kind of democracy in Iraq.
Some UN observers are already there. Didn't you see that news story I posted? The biggest reason they're not there in force is because they've been chased out by the islamo-fascists, and thus don't want to participate.
Like I said, they shut down papers directly advocating violence against the government -- both here and in Iraq.
The U.S. backed Iraq against Iran, but by the time Saddam gassed the Kurds in the late 80's, the war was over and the U.S. had withdrawn its limited support.
And yet here people are still posting about it.