Senators Want New Sanctions After Iran Talks Show Some Possible Progress

bob's yourReasonSenate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has called for more sanctions against Iran as the latest round of talks in Geneva over the country’s nuclear program ended and another was scheduled for the end of the month. Menendez was joined by Republican Lindsey Graham and other senators who have been gunning for tougher sanctions.

From Fox News:

Senate leaders showed bipartisan support Sunday for tougher sanctions on Iran following failed talks this weekend toward curtailing that country’s nuclear-development program, but also indicated they would likely wait until after talking to Secretary of State John Kerry.

Kerry and other Western leaders wrapped up talks Sunday after failing to agree on a deal, which purportedly stalled when France rejected a list of demands on Iran because they were too generous to mean an easing of international sanctions.

Administration officials led by Vice President Joe Biden and including Kerry had persuaded senators late last month to delay considering a new round of penalties until after the Geneva talks.

Kerry joined the talks in Geneva Friday to lower expectations; negotiators on all sides had been cautiously optimistic about reaching a deal earlier this week. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, had warned about Iran getting the “deal of the century.”

Menendez said the US shouldn’t be or appear more interested in a making a deal than Iran in defending the argument for more sanctions.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian!||

    Simpsons did it!!

    Just thought I'd say that. It's on now.

  • ||

    No matter what the Iranians say or agree to, you can bet your last dollar it is all lies and they will go back on the deal.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    John Kerry gave a presser at the airport a few minutes ago, something about this agreement meaning peace in our time, or something.

  • JohnD||

    And Kerry is the biggest dunce in the room. That idiotic traitor will sell us out in a heartbeat, just like he did his comrades in arms in Nam.

  • Finrod||

    How sad of a world is it when France is tougher on the Iranians than we are?

  • Jquip||

    France has historically driven hard bargains when they have the upper hand. However, we tend to wander in, hand out chocolate and leave. Perhaps breaking a few things and sowing a few oats in the process.

  • Juice||

    It's long past time to make peace with Iran.

  • ||

    HaHaHa.

  • JohnD||

    Fool. Peace with a country that wants to destroy Israel and the US?

    Lay down the crack pipe and sober up.

  • Juice||

    Wow, I can't believe you actually swallow all that crap. Talk about a fool. Or more like a tool.

  • SIV||

    Not collecting stamps IS a hobby!

    Atheist Mega-Churches

    Intolerant religious freaks.

  • ||

    Intolerant religious freaks.

    Like-minded people gathering in one place?

    Yeah, fuck them!

  • SIV||

    ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH! ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!ATHEIST CHURCH!

    Atheism IS a religion, and a particularly irrational one at that.

  • ||

    Shouldn't you be burning a cross, you inbred backwater freak?

    With apologies to Episiarch.

  • SIV||

    With your certificate in "neuroscience" maybe they'll let you be a monk in an Atheist monastery.

  • ||

    Why scarequote the whole word? Do neurons not exist? Are those a cosmotarian fiction?

  • Pathogen||

    Long answer, 'Yes', with a *but*... short answer, 'No', with an *if*...

  • ||

    That's OK, Thane, I deserved it. However, you need to realize that the "atheism is religion" morons can't conceive of not being religious and believing in sky daddies, so they cannot comprehend how someone else doesn't. That's why they keep beating such a retarded horse: they just think atheists are somehow faking not having faith or being religious.

    They're not too bright.

  • Irish||

    Well, I'm an atheist and think that a lot of atheists do raise atheism to religion status.

    When atheists start claiming that in order to be a 'true atheist' you need to believe what they believe politically, a deep sickness I see in progressive atheists all the time, it's hard not to see that as essentially a religion. When you've constructed an entire doctrine around your metaphysical beliefs, it is a religion.

    Of course, none of the atheists here are like that. I just think that left-wing evangelical atheists do have a tendency to turn it into a puritanical religion.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    When atheists start claiming that in order to be a 'true atheist' you need to believe what they believe politically, a deep sickness I see in progressive atheists all the time, it's hard not to see that as essentially a religion.

    Yep.

  • ||

    "Left-wing evangelical atheists" are not atheists. They are completely religious, and worship the state. They have limitless faith in the power of the state.

    It is mendacious beyond belief (not saying that you're doing this) to equate some extremely religious, totally irrational statists who happen to use the term "atheist" with actual atheists. Just like there are people who call themselves "anarchists" while being absolutely nothing of the sort, many "atheists" are nothing of the sort.

    But hey, some people have to fight their obsessive KULTUR WAR at all times. Damn, they must be so miserable. Which is hilarious.

  • Irish||

    It is mendacious beyond belief (not saying that you're doing this) to equate some extremely religious, totally irrational statists who happen to use the term "atheist" with actual atheists.

    I disagree. This is a massive case of 'No True Scotsman.'

    Atheist doesn't mean you're not religious. It means you don't believe in any gods. Buddhism is technically an atheist religion. For that matter, animist religions are atheist, as are various sorts of ancestor worship. They're all religions, but are nonetheless atheistic.

    What makes something a religion is elevating aspects of that belief to a doctrine and claiming that someone does not belong to your group if they don't observe the proper rites and rituals.

    This is what left-wing atheists do when they claim atheists must be progressive. They're atheists because they don't believe in any gods, but they've still elevated it to a religion belief. You don't get to claim they aren't atheists just because you hate them.

  • Sevo||

    "What makes something a religion is elevating aspects of that belief to a doctrine and claiming that someone does not belong to your group if they don't observe the proper rites and rituals."

    That's true enough, but 'theism' is a belief in a 'god'; a mystical source of power affecting humans.
    'Atheism' is the contrary non-belief.

  • ||

    Maybe we're working from different definitions, Irish. I view atheism as meaning "not believing in any gods or afterlifes or karma or reincarnation or anything supernatural and non-scientific". Basically, anything that requires faith--such as Buddhism--is not atheistic. Maybe my definition is too broad, but you see what I mean.

    As far as I am concerned, left-wing "atheists" who have raised their "atheism" to the status of a religion are automatically not actual atheists, because they have faith.

    Regardless, my overall point stands: even if you want to call left-wing "atheists" and individual "atheists" atheists, to conflate them as being the same is utterly mendacious. There is no similarity between someone who elevates their supposed lack of belief in gods to a religion, and you or me or many people here. None.

    Like I said, some obsessives just love to get their KULTUR WAR boner hard and stroke it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I view atheism as meaning "not believing in any gods or afterlifes or karma or reincarnation or anything supernatural and non-scientific"."

    And the online Webster's dictionary defines atheism as

    "1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

    "2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

    "b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

  • Irish||

    "2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

    "b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

    That's exactly right. Theist means an individual who believes in at least one god. Atheist therefore means someone who believes in no gods.

    It has nothing to do with religious belief. A religion can be theistic or atheistic and an atheist can be religious or irreligious.

  • Rhywun||

    I usually just say I'm non-religious. That covers all the mystical crap that Epi mentioned up above.

  • ||

    I always say I'm a Laplacian.

    "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese."

  • Sevo||

    "2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity"

    May be picking of nits, but I'm not happy with "disbelief"; that sounds like a negative. Sort of 'believing in the non-existence' of the thing.
    Non-belief is preferable; I simply see no evidence for what some people claim is a 'god'. I an "a-theistic".
    And yes, I retain the right to laugh when someone promotes their belief as a magical solution to one issue or another.

  • Sevo||

    Episiarch|11.10.13 @ 7:57PM|#
    ""Left-wing evangelical atheists" are not atheists. They are completely religious, and worship the state."

    Substitute worship of 'earth mother' for state and you've found greenies who call themselves 'atheists'.
    They're 'atheist' as Jon Stewart is 'libertarian'.

  • SIV||

    No true Atheist...

  • Sevo||

    SIV|11.10.13 @ 8:17PM|#
    "No true Atheist..."

    Easy enough to get into that sort of view, but remember shreek claims to be libertarian, just not enough to pass the purity test.
    Well, yeah, if you think Obo is a good prez, you've flunked the libertarian 'purity test'.
    And if you think mankind is 'raping mother earth', you've atheist 'purity test'.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It is mendacious beyond belief (not saying that you're doing this) to equate some extremely religious, totally irrational statists who happen to use the term "atheist" with actual atheists. Just like there are people who call themselves "anarchists" while being absolutely nothing of the sort, many "atheists" are nothing of the sort.

    Atheism, the lack of belief in a supernatural deity, or sky daddy as you called it, does not contradict a worship of government and / or the state.

    In fact, it is common that a person prone to worshipping a higher power will substitute the state for a deity.

  • ||

    I think atheists should be more like the Jews.

    Obviously Jews think they are right and they are on the right path to "enlightenment yet they don't ask anyone who is not a Jew to join them. In fact if one does try to join them they almost down right discourage it.

    I am that kind of atheist.

    Potential atheist "Maybe there is no god"

    me "nah you should probably just keep believing"

  • Pathogen||

    Well, I'm an atheist and think that a lot of atheists do raise atheism to religion status.

    When atheists start claiming that in order to be a 'true atheist' you need to believe what they believe politically, a deep sickness I see in progressive atheists all the time, it's hard not to see that as essentially a religion. When you've constructed an entire doctrine around your metaphysical beliefs, it is a religion.

    ^This^... Spot on.

  • SIV||

    Well, I'm an atheist and think that a lot of atheists do raise atheism to religion status.

    You're on the path to agnosticism

  • Irish||

    No I'm not because I'm convinced there is no God. I have no idea how anything I said makes you think I'm wavering in that opinion.

  • SIV||

    Your Faith is strong.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

  • PaulW||

    The problem with atheism as I see it is that it implies all people are intelligent enough for no written moral code to follow. I simply do not agree with that, and honestly, most atheists do not fit that description either, no matter how how highly they think of themselves by denigrating religion. Seems to me it is mostly a self esteem issue, which tends to generally be a problem with the less intelligent.

  • Sevo||

    PaulW|11.10.13 @ 10:42PM|#
    "The problem with atheism as I see it is that it implies all people are intelligent enough for no written moral code to follow."

    Only a fake religion can codify behavior?!
    I think I smell an apologist.
    You are making the typical bleever mistake. religions co-opted behavior standards and then claimed there were no standards without the co-opted ones! And then demanded payment for doing so.
    Typical power grab, and there are still apologists for the effort, right, Paul?

  • William of Purple||

    If there is evil, there has to be good. If there's good, there has to be a law to differentiate the two. If there's a moral law, there has to be a moral law giver. But that's who you're trying to disprove. Because if there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there can be no good. What is your question?

  • Calidissident||

    "If there is evil, there has to be good. If there's good, there has to be a law to differentiate the two. If there's a moral law, there has to be a moral law giver. But that's who you're trying to disprove. Because if there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there can be no good. What is your question?"

    How does religion, without proof of the existence of its God or gods, solve this dilemma?

  • PaulW||

    Through the use of faith, of course. The dilemma may not be solved, but it is for those *believe* it is. Is there good only because we, in some way create it? Is goodness the result of our machinations? Or are our machinations the result of our goodness?

    Reality is relative to the mind it is seen through. Atheism may be a perfectly acceptable venue for you, but it may not be for others.

  • PaulW||

    Well, I thank you for unwittingly proving my final point.

    You are typical of the self-righteous atheist. If not religion, who provides the moral code needed for a functioning society? You? Government?

    I find your disregard for religion as very unbecoming a libertarian.

    The left's constant barrage on religion is not to enlighten people, nor is it in the name of liberty, it is to put the state in the place of religion. Ironic that so many libertarians support such efforts

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    The problem with atheism as I see it is that it implies all people are intelligent enough for no written moral code to follow.

    1. A person may do as they wish, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

    2. The ONLY legitimate role of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

    There need not be a god.

  • William of Purple||

    You haven't defined "rights" in this example.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Rights are easy. Negative rights are unlimited. Positive rights are limited to those provided by your constitution.

  • ||

    So now that we are on a subject of atheism i think i want to put a giant hole in a thing lots of atheists have faith in unconditionally.

    The bullshit that is called the big bang.

    Ok lets say the big bang is true. Why the fuck would everything explode outwards? We know what happens when a shit load of mass gets packed in. We call it a black hole. Why didn't the universe as soon as it winked into existence instantly collapse into a giant black hole?

  • PaulW||

    Because of the dark energy and dark matter!

    What that is, no one knows, really.

    The most annoying thing about atheists is they believe just as much as the religious zealots that they have all the answers, when in fact no one really does.

    The second most annoying thing about them is that they don't understand why the rest of us get just as annoyed with them as we do the religious zealots.

  • ||

    Many universes may have. No way to know. It's a fantastically interesting research area- there WAS a Big Bang (way too much evidence to dismiss that) but "why" and its exact nature is still not fully known.

    When a point singularity expands, it doesn't go "outward," since there is no "outward." A sentence which is grammatically fine may still be physically nonsense.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Why the fuck would everything explode outwards?

    No one knows...yet. But it did.

    One THEORY is where existing universes (membranes) collide, a new universe is formed. For a crazy as the possibility of multiple universes sounds (or would have once sounded), the physics supports such a possibility.

    Regardless, not knowing how or why something happened, does NOT lend ANY credibility to the premise that it happened by magic.

  • PaulW||

    I'm not sure if you're arguing for me or against me in those points.

    I am a libertarian, I wholeheartedly agree, and I also don't see any legitimate argument proving that religion cannot live within those values.

    I'm simply saying people who try and push Atheism are short-sighted. There are those who need a bit more help in not only morality, but in their own understanding of how our world works, and as long as they are getting that help willingly, I see no wrong with religion.

  • General Butt Naked||

    So, you don't care if people are fooled, you just want in on the joke?

  • Rhywun||

    Atheism IS a religion, and a particularly irrational one at that.

    Oh no.

  • SIV||

    Slow Sunday. You have to admit the existence and proliferation "Atheist Mega-Churches" is pretty much a win for the position that Atheism is a religion.
    If I was a "secular atheist" I'd find it somewhat embarrassing too.

  • Rhywun||

    I don't see how "several hundred" is "mega", but sure - i'll grant that forming self-styled "churches" has a kind of tongue-in-cheek religious undertone but I doubt it would appeal to more than a tiny fraction of atheists.

  • Sevo||

    Paul Kurtz tried organizing groups of atheists (and skeptics in general) in the '80s as I recall.
    His point was valid enough in that some people wish to celebrate certain life events (weddings, coming-of-age, births, etc) with others and he wanted to offer non-religious gatherings for that purpose.
    I never signed on, and I don't think it went very far, unless you count the cocktail parties inside the belt-way. Sorta.

  • SIV||

    unless you count the cocktail parties inside the belt-way

    Don't go there!

  • Rhywun||

    Enh, I just participate in religious celebrations weddings and such if that's what they are. No skin off my back. I don't understand the mindset of people who go out of their way to be an ass - but that's just me.

  • Sevo||

    ..."I don't understand the mindset of people who go out of their way to be an ass"...

    Care to define what that means?
    If it's Kurtz, all he did was offer an alternative. If it's me, I reserve the right to laugh.

  • Rhywun||

    Care to define what that means?

    If some of my friends are religious and some aren't - and I decide to hold an "atheist wedding", well I think that's being an ass. It doesn't surprise me that such a movement didn't go anywhere, because most normal people aren't that cloistered.

  • Sevo||

    "If some of my friends are religious and some aren't - and I decide to hold an "atheist wedding", well I think that's being an ass."

    Having a hard time with that. Why would holding a non-religious ceremony exclude any more people than a religious ditto?

  • Rhywun||

    Atheist non-religious

  • Rhywun||

    Let's try again: atheist is not equal to non-religious

  • Sevo||

    Well, OK, but a religious ceremony is pretty much always a theist ceremony.
    So why is that less distasteful than a atheist ceremony?

  • JohnD||

    Sevo is having a hard time understanding you comment. Typical.

  • ||

    Do tell.

  • JohnD||

    And their God is the government.

  • Juice||

    O man, you ARE a moron.

  • ||

    Menendez was joined by Republican Lindsey Graham

    Color me shocked. When will SC get that clown out of office?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Klingon general Martok elected to New York town board

    A Klingon warrior has been elected to a town board in New York.

    John Hertzler has played as many as 10 different roles in the Star Trek franchise, most notably as Martok – a Klingon warrior known for skill and leadership on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

    On Jan. 1, he will become one of five board members in Ulysses, a town of 5,000 people in Tompkins County near Ithaca.

    "I hope to be able to accomplish something," Hertzler said of his new role.

    Larry Nemecek, a Star Trek expert from Burbank, Ca., said he couldn't recall any other recurring Star Trek characters that have won elected office.

    Hertzler said he has taken his passion as an actor and translated it in community involvement. He still travels the world to attend Star Trek conventions in character as the powerful Klingon leader who rose to chancellor.

  • Rhywun||

    Heh, I'm watching DS9 from start to finish and I saw this guy's first appearance last night.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "the powerful Klingon leader who rose to chancellor"

    Uh, oh.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Bolt Burgers: The future of restaurants in the $15 minimum wage era

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ming-soon/

    No restaurant in D.C. has been better outfitted for the iPhone generation than the forthcoming Bolt Burgers. It is a restaurant full of screens -- touchscreen systems for ordering your food and making your drinks, tablets at every table, and a 16-foot-wide projected TV screen to watch while you wait for your order.

    You can order food without having a single interaction with another human being, which, for millennials who prefer texting and online ordering through Seamless to picking up the phone, is a major plus.

    Michael Davidson, Joe Spinelli and other partners at Bolt Burgers are banking on it. When the 3,200-square-foot restaurant opens by Thanksgiving at 1010 Massachusetts Ave. NW, they'll have put more than 18 months into perfecting the computer systems behind Bolt, a concept they plan to franchise.

    It amuses me that they make a big deal about the grill, though; McDonald's has had those things forever. The only problem with them is cleaning can be a PITA; the top clam grill is fucking hot and will burn the shit out of the back of your wrist if you aren't careful.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I can believe there are politicians in some cities crazy enough to ban these kind of automated restaurants for 'killing jobs'.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Wasn't it Obama who talked about how ATMs were job killers? Or was that Hillary? I can't remember.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    That was Obama. He said there were some 'structural issues' with the economy, such as ATMs replacing tellers and companies shifting to automatons.

    To be fair, I don't think he was advocating Ludditism so much as using it as proof that government needs to lead the way to create jobs of the future.

  • Generic Stranger||

    To be fair, I don't think he was advocating Ludditism so much as using it as proof that government needs to lead the way to create jobs of the future.

    Perhaps they should look into not pricing people out of the job market, and see how that works.

  • Sevo||

    "To be fair, I don't think he was advocating Ludditism"

    You might call that "fair". I'd call it naivete; he's dumb enough to be a Luddite and not even know it.

  • JohnD||

    Well, Obama said the ATM's were killing jobs. Of course, he is the dumbest man in the room.

  • Rhywun||

    Uh... I'm no "millenial" but I've found that avoidance of humans at a fast-food restaurant is usually a plus.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Uh... I'm no "millenial" but I've found that avoidance of humans at a fast-food restaurant is usually a plus.

    FIFY

  • Rhywun||

    True.

  • Sevo||

    ..."When the 3,200-square-foot restaurant opens by Thanksgiving at 1010 Massachusetts Ave. NW, they'll have put more than 18 months into perfecting the computer systems behind Bolt,"...

    Maybe they could sell it to Obo!

  • Warrren||

    The security officer on DS9?

  • Generic Stranger||

    That was Odo.

  • Warrren||

    No, that's the thing that counts the mileage in my car.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Not sure if serious...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_(Star_Trek)

  • Generic Stranger||

    WTF, link?

    Here.

  • Warrren||

    Hmm, that guy looks a lot like Governor Gatling's Chief of Staff.

  • SIV||

    As for the burgers, Bolt offers beef, turkey, chicken and veggie options, but it's really throwing its muscle behind toppings. To create your own Bolt Burger ($6.99 and up) you're presented with 25 potential toppings, including truffle pecorino cheese, pancetta and fancy relishes. Before it's grilled, each burger can be dusted in one of four spice blends custom-mixed for the company.

    Disgusting and un-American.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yes, there is nothing more un-American than companies catering to people's individual preferences and offering the ability to customize their products.

  • SIV||

    Ahem

    turkey, chicken and veggie options

  • Sevo||

    Sorry, SIV, I like Cincinnati Chili; 3-way, please, and a Cony with that.

  • SIV||

    5-way

    They make turkey and veggie Cinci-chili?

  • Sevo||

    "They make turkey and veggie Cinci-chili?"
    Not as far as I know, but if they did, I'd still ask for 3-way and a Cony.

  • johnl||

    There is a place in Oceanside, Q's, to get that, but they call it "Texas" chili.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I don't know why, but this gave me an idea for a restaurant.

    Call it Malapropos, and everything on the menu will be food items that have controversial variations named for the wrong variation. For instance, New York style pizza would actually be pan pizza, southern-style cornbread would be made in the northern style (you wouldn't believe how upset people can get over cornbread; I've seen people almost banned from forums over it) and so on. Fraud would be avoided by having detailed, accurate descriptions and pictures on the menu.

    It would be a massive troll, and probably wouldn't make any money, but it'd be hilarious while it lasted.

  • Sevo||

    "you wouldn't believe how upset people can get over cornbread"

    I would.
    No one makes better cornbread than my recipe. NO ONE!
    Oh, and it's godless...

  • johnl||

    The "mexican" food would be fishsticks with ranch dressing. You know, I think your idea has already been tried, and it's San Diego County.

  • IDPNDNT||

    Call me un-American, but you can make a damn good turkey burger.

  • JohnD||

    No real American would eat a turkey or a veggie burger.

  • Warty||

    Holy fucking shit, you're a moron. This is even dumber than your NUH UH ATHEISTS ARE RELIGOUS TOOOOOOOOO tripe. Do us all a favor and choke on a cock-shaped hot dog, you fucking retard.

  • Sevo||

    ..."a cock-shaped hot dog,"...

    Trying to imagine a hot dog that isn't; failing.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Perhaps they should look into not pricing people out of the job market, and see how that works.

    Perhaps they should stop thinking of "employers" as being nothing more than people who magically hand out paychecks on Friday.

  • Generic Stranger||

    That would be a good start, anyway.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    *Peeks in thread, closes tab, switches on Hockey match*

  • Ted S.||

    Brodeur with another shutout!

    Cam Janssen with a goal!!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Don't call us a banana republic.

    Bank of America’s Countrywide unit was found liable by a jury in Manhattan federal court last month for selling the government-sponsored entities thousands of defective loans in the first mortgage-fraud case brought by the U.S. to go to trial.

    The bank’s fraud was “simple but brazen,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing last night. “They made bad loans and they knowingly sold those bad loans as good loans to cheat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of money.”

    Given the measure of Countrywide’s culpability, the public injury and the bank’s ability to pay, the government said the maximum penalty under the law was warranted -- the gross loss suffered by the entities under the scheme.

    "Let's sell this failing lender to a solvent buyer under duress, so we can come back later and fine the shit out of that buyer for things done prior to the purchase, because they have money. Truth, Justice, and The American Way!"

  • Sevo||

    TLB,
    Shreek was flogging this last night as an example of how the 'banksters' are being brought to justice by his fave liar Obo!
    He got beaten into the ground over it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, they're giving back about 1% of what the Fed's given them.

  • Sevo||

    It's really hard to figger who's zoomin' who in this disaster.
    BoA gets stuck with that thing, but BoA is no angel. Then the gov't extorts $X back for PR purposes.
    Find a good guy here!

  • Ted S.||

    It's really hard to figger who's zoomin' who in this disaster.

    No it's not hard -- it's Aretha Franklin.

  • Sevo||

    I knew some one would get the reference from an old fart.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In this Nov. 6 BBC story, "Professor David Abraham, an expert on immigration and citizenship law at the University of Miami School of Law," praises Germany's anti-homeschooling statutes:

    "Germany is a democratic country and it chooses to make attendance in schools mandatory. It offers many choices of school - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, private, public - every imaginable sort."

    "But its legislature has decided that children need the social context of meeting other children.

    "Parents have a responsibility to raise their children properly, but that does not mean they have a right to counter democratic legislation. What they can't call persecution is the obligation to attend school with other children. That's an important social value that the German legislature has adopted."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24804804

  • ||

    "But its legislature has decided that children need...."

    Top Men have decided. That settles it.

    The last people I want making decisions about my children is a gaggle of fuckwits whose only skill is bullshitting their way into office.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If the Germans want children to socialize, they should require the kids to join with their peers in healthy outdoor activities and political education, supervised by the appropriate ministry.

  • Sevo||

    Well, we could call it the "Greater German Youth Movement", except for the memories.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    And send them off to...camp?

  • JohnD||

    What a fool. No wonder Hitler rose to power in Germany. Prof Abraham sounds like a good little NAZI. Sort of like Obama is a good little Marxist.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Democratic catfight coming up? Hillary Clinton represents the Dem establishment, Liz Warren the lefty base.

    "Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren

    "On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than they’ve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare. They’ve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business....

    On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recession—happily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefits—still fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.

    "...It’s only when the president finally contemplates retirement that the feuding breaks out with real violence. Think of the Republican Party after George W. Bush. Or, you know, Yugoslavia."

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art.....-nightmare

  • playa manhattan||

    That's tricky. Liz Warren has no soul.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Need some geek advice.

    I just saw Ender's Game. Keeping with my long tradition of seeing the movie, BEFORE wasting my time reading a book, I'm considering it. Can any of my geek friends who've done both tell me if such a move would be worth it?

  • playa manhattan||

    geek=tech skills.
    nerd=Sci fi

    You need nerd advice.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    geek Noun /gēk/

    1. An unfashionable or socially inept person
    2. A person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest

    nerd Noun /nərd/

    1. A foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious
    2. An intelligent, single-minded expert in a particular technical discipline or profession

    Thesaurus

    Inverse thesaurus

  • playa manhattan||

    I'm confused. Am I right or wrong?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I don't see much of a difference in the definition and teh thesaurus says they are synonyms.

    But, if your psyche needs to make a distinction, far be it from me to rip your world apart. :-)

  • playa manhattan||

    I always thought I was a geek with people skills. Now I'm finding out that I might be a nerd too.

  • Ted S.||

    I'm sure you all know what a geek originally meant.

  • ||

    I haven't seen the movie, and have no intention of doing so, but I read the book when it came out. The book isn't that good, and if you've seen the movie, then the "surprise" ending has already been revealed to you (assuming the movie follows the book), so you probably don't need to bother with the book. You'd be much better off reading something good instead, like Charles Stross or Neal Asher.

  • Rhywun||

    ^This. Unless you really, really enjoyed the move. The book is probably "better" - as it almost always is - but in this case that isn't saying much.

  • Rhywun||

    Er, "movie".

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Thanks. While the ending posed a bunch of philosophical questions, I was more interested in the leadership aspects portrayed throughout his training.

    I enjoyed the movie.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    The book is pretty good and a quick read. You'll definitely get more of the thinking behind Ender's strategies and command abilities than in the movie and what makes him ideal for the role.

    The story itself is inspired by historian Bruce Catton's Civil War history 'Army of the Potomac', which was about the search for a suitable general to command a great army.

  • Warrren||

    Years ago when I first got online I was encouraged to read the books and I finished them but the only lasting impact they've had on me is the value of staff work when it comes to planning an invasion. Probably not what Card was going for.

    I do remember one site I was on had at least two people with Ender-derived nics and from what I gathered there were a lot of folks online that thought themselves as being as competent as Ender was shown to be.

    Fortunately I've not encountered any such in quite awhile. Well, except for Obama of course.

    Anyway not planning on seeing the movie.

  • Juice||

    The movie left out whole chunks of the story and I was wondering if someone who hadn't read the book could tell what was going on. You should have read the book before seeing the movie. It's a quick read.

  • Almanian!||

    Lions fans know there is no god. But shitty victories in consecutive weeks that were FER SURE defeats in prior seasons just means we "fans" have a couple more weeks before they let us down one more time.

    Thanks, Lions!

    Fuck Chicago with George Halas necrotic penis.

    PS Speaking of "let me down", I gotta go see how the Brownies did....HAHA! Bye week! Perfect. Good luck to all my pals in Cleveland - I know you live and die with your even-shittier-than-my-team team.

  • Ted S.||

    Lions fans are lucky that Aaron Rodgers broke his collarbone.

  • Warrren||

    The last graf of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Bunch is:

    On May 15, 2013, The Wrap reported that Will Smith is in talks to star in and produce the remake. The new version involves drug cartels and follows a disgraced DEA agent who assembles a team to go after a Mexican drug lord and his fortune. No director has been chosen, and a new screenwriter is being sought.

    No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

  • JW||

    Will Smith is why we can't have nice things.

  • SIV||

    A thousand times no wouldn't be enough.

  • Irish||

    Not content to misunderstand the second amendment, fired Guns and Ammo editor proves he doesn't get the first, either.

    How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?

    Uh...freedom of speech has to do with the government restricting speech, buddy. You have no right to freedom of speech from a magazine. Secondly, firing someone for writing an article completely contrary to the reason a magazine exists does not show you fear an open discussion. It shows that you understand why it might be a bad idea for someone to argue in favor of gun restrictions in a pro-gun magazine.

  • JohnD||

    You can't fix stupid.

  • Irish||

    They're BAAAAAAAAACK!

    For the first time in a century and a half, the Whig Party has successfully elected a candidate. Is the party of Henry Clay making a comeback?
  • Warrren||

    Fuckin' Whigs. Just what of the original policies of the party are yet to be made part of American government?

    What does a person gain through being a Whigger that he wouldn't get by being a Democrat?

  • Warrren||

    Fuckin' Whigs. Just what of the original policies of the party are yet to be made part of American government?

    What does a person gain through being a Whigger that he wouldn't get by being a Democrat?

  • Irish||

    According to the website that I just looked at, they're in favor of federalism and lower taxes.

    Doesn't sound much like the modern Democrats to me, at least in that regard.

  • Warrren||

    Protectionism and the internal improvements scam more than offsets their lower taxes stance.

    They're economic imbeciles and would fit in with either party.

  • Irish||

    Sure, but they've also got this hilariously fucking stupid online poster.

    I love that they say 'are you tired of fringe third parties?' and the three examples they give are the libertarians, the green party, and the Constitution Party...all of which are far less fringe than the fucking Whigs.

    Apparently libertarians are fringe even though there are several congressmen who are essentially libertarian, but the Whigs really have their fingers on the pulse of America, despite the fact that no one even realizes they exist.

  • Warrren||

    Yeah, but their symbol is an owl. An OWL! How can the other parties withstand that?

  • Irish||

    The Modern Whig party of the United States of America is the party for the rest of us, the party of patriots, the party of equality, the party of liberty, and the party of moderates.

    We, the Modern Whigs, standing on the broad and firm platform of the Constitution, united by all of its inviolable and sacred guarantees and compromises, relying upon the intelligence of the American people, with an abiding confidence in their capacity for self-government and their devotion to the Constitution and to the United States of America, pledge to go forth with integrity, open-mindedness, pragmatism, and transparency as we pursue our civic duty.

    - adapted from the preamble to the Modern Whig Party Constitution and By-Laws

    On the bright side, if we elect the Whigs we'll apparently never run out of meaningless platitudes.

  • ||

    Why would they not use the libertarian Porcupine?

    Why would they do that to us?

  • Warrren||

    On FB they have just over 1300 likes while the LP has over 400,000.

    They must be using "fringe" ironically.

    Which means they're hipsters.

    Disagree? How about:

    Into something retro, that not many people know about? Check.

    Likely to cause smug satisfaction amongst adherents? Check.

    Be mocked incessantly? Check.

    Be utterly useless? Check.

    So yeah, hipsters.

  • ||

    Be utterly useless? Check.

    Hipsters are the only people who still listen too and make new Rock and Roll music.

    I can't hate them.

  • Generic Stranger||

    They actually kind of look like a more statist version of the Libertarian Party, in terms of their split on social and fiscal issues.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    They seem pretty technocratic on the Federal level, even if they claim to support states' rights.

    And their foreign policy seems pretty neo-con.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yeah, which is why I said "more statist".

    They have the socially liberal, fiscally conservative thing going on that Libertarians do, but their actual positions are fairly statist, more picking from the more statist policies of the D's and R's than really providing an alternative, liberty-minded third way.

    So, they're basically Tulpa's perfect party.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    So, they're basically Tulpa's perfect party.

    Nice.

  • Warrren||

    Gag. That gave me a mental image of going to a party at Tulpa's house.

    Can you imagine the soul-sucking affair that would be?

  • William of Purple||

    Don't tap the glass on the aquarium.

  • Warrren||

    Tulpa is well-ensconced in his climate controlled isolation coffin at this hour.

  • Redmanfms||

    So, they're basically Tulpa's perfect party.

    Basically.

    Thoroughly statist, protectionist, interventionist, and offering platitudes of liberty.

    They read essentially like the inverse of the Libertarian Party.

  • Dave Krueger||

    When it comes to nuclear weapons, we should be no less harsh on Iran than we were with Israel. Otherwise it might look like we have a double standard.

    Iran shouldn't be cut any slack until they demonstrate that, like Israel, they are willing to refrain from any acts of war toward their neighbors. Otherwise it might look like we have a double standard.

    We should also demand that Iran be more like Israel and stop occupying land that doesn't belong to them. Otherwise it might look like we have a double standard.

  • Redmanfms||

    You're pretty obsessed with Israel, why is that?

  • JohnD||

    So how long have you been a Jew hater, Dave? And do you still have the poster of Hitler in your living room.

  • William of Purple||

    Atheism fails to give me an adequate answer to questions on the identity, origin, purpose, and destiny of my life.
    Your mileage may vary.

  • Sevo||

    William of Purple|11.10.13 @ 11:32PM|#
    "Atheism fails to give me an adequate answer to questions on the identity, origin, purpose, and destiny of my life."

    Theism seems an admission that you have no desire to deal with reality.
    YMMV.

  • William of Purple||

    No, dealing with reality means I have to answer those questions.

  • Sevo||

    William of Purple|11.11.13 @ 12:00AM|#
    "No, dealing with reality means I have to answer those questions."

    No kidding! Reality guarantees you answers?
    No wonder you're a bleever.

  • JohnD||

    Idiot

  • Sevo||

    JohnD|11.11.13 @ 7:53AM|#
    "Idiot"

    'Nother guy with imaginary friends? You might try growing up, but then you'd actually have to deal with reality.

  • Sevo||

    Check the comments; Greenpeace doesn't feel much love in SF:
    "Greenpeace's 'hippie ship' stops by S.F.'s waterfront"
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/.....972875.php

  • johnl||

    Lucy's dad had an insanely funny bit on her site a couple weeks ago. http://thestagblog.com/maureen.....e-parable/

  • Mock-star||

    Would it not make sense to try to INCREASE trade with Iran if we wanted to influence their policies, not use sanctions to decrease it?

  • JidaKida||

    Sometimes man you jsut have toroll with it. WOw.

    www.Privacy-Road.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement