Edumacate yo' damn self

[HaemishM]

Ok, put up or shut the fuck up time. I made it through about half a page of the shit-flinging stupidity that was in that "There's Liberals Under My Bed" or whatever stupid book title it was thread.

If you want to discuss political shit, fine, but educate your damn self before you talk. Google it, or better yet visit this fucking site first.

Project Vote-Smart

It's a site that has the voting records of every congressman for a long time back. So before you start talking about how a candidate stands for this or that, please check his voting record. Find out about what he is or isn't voting for. Then maybe look on his or her web site and find out what positions he is taking and how that jibes with his voting record.

Don't make it easy for trolls like Boog to come in here and start silly-ass shitflinging parties because you don't want to be bothered. It's the least you can do.

After having looked at Kerry's recent record, he has a lot of "didn't votes" but the issues he has voted for, for the most part, I agree with. Granted, even if I didn't, I couldn't see myself voting for Bush, but at least I have researched it a bit.

Let's have some educated discussions. Then if we want to call each other cocksuckers, we can at least be EDUCATED cocksuckers.

Keke?

[Paelos]

But isn't knowledge the opiate of the masses? How can anyone get ever get angry if they aren't uninformed and generally useless?

[Bunk]

Why didn't you post this for Hyu about 6 months ago?

[Dark Vengeance]

If you want to discuss political shit, fine, but educate your damn self before you talk. Google it, or better yet visit this fucking site first.

*snip*

Let's have some educated discussions. Then if we want to call each other cocksuckers, we can at least be EDUCATED cocksuckers.

God bless you, sir.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[geldonyetich]

Help help! Somebody's trying to tell me how to vote!

Anywho, good link, I'll read through it.

Though, they seem a little uninformed as to the stances of Bush Jr. and John Kerry.   The Fun Facts section on both candidates is good reading though.

[Mi_Tes]

Fun Facts for the win.

Chocolate chip cookies are John Kerry's favorite food.  Yet another reason to vote for him!

[HaemishM]

Though, they seem a little uninformed as to the stances of Bush Jr. and John Kerry.  

Those links say:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH/JOHN KERRY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY
RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE
NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST

Judging from my attempts to find out about someone running against my Congressman, that isn't that strange a thing. I'm not sure what the NPAT is, but it seems like both candidates aren't too fond of it.

EDIT: None of my current office holding representatives, including governor, would answer the NPAT either.

[daveNYC]

http://www.vote-smart.org/match_section.php

Environment and Energy Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding the environment and energy.
a) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
b) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
c) Require states to compensate citizens when environmental regulations limit uses of privately-owned land.
d) Exempt the military from some environmental regulations.
e) Relax logging restrictions on federal lands.
f) Relax standards on federal lands to allow increased recreational usage.
g) Support increased development of traditional energy resources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil).
h) Strengthen emission controls and fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
i) Support opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration.
j) Encourage further development and use of alternative fuels to reduce pollution.
k) Support use of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
l) Allow energy producers to trade pollution credits.
m) Support the U.S. re-entering the Kyoto treaty process to limit global warming.
n) Other or expanded principles

It's got a total of 22 sections.  It seems to demand semi-specific answers to various policy questions, no wonder the politicos don't like it.

[SirBruce]

Too bad someone's voting record, particularly if you count all procedural votes, is often not very indicative of their actual position on that issue.

It's probably a smarter idea to listen to what they say their position is, compare it to their previous positions and votes on that matter, and then ask for an explanation.  If you don't get a good one (re: Kerry in Cambodia) then you have reason to distrust them.

Neither Bush nor Kerry agree with all my issues, but I trust Bush more and I think Kerry's proposals would fuck up things more than Bush's.

Bruce

[schmoo]

Neither Bush nor Kerry agree with all my issues, but I trust Bush more and I think Kerry's proposals would fuck up things more than Bush's.

Bruce

Things couldn't be much more fucked up than they are now.  Respectfully disagreeing with Bruce.  I wouldn't trust Mr. Bush with taking care of my cat, much less my country.

One must also realize that politicians will say anything they think will get them elected.  See Mr. Bush backpedaling from previous stances, and Mr. Kerry carefully not saying much at all about certain things.

[Murgos]

Things couldn't be much more fucked up than they are now.

Don't tempt fate.  The last year has been much better than the previous couple.

[HaemishM]

One must also realize that politicians will say anything they think will get them elected.  See Mr. Bush backpedaling from previous stances, and Mr. Kerry carefully not saying much at all about certain things.

I'm personally loving to see "The American Military should not be used for nation-building" played over and over again.

[SirBruce]

One must also realize that politicians will say anything they think will get them elected.  See Mr. Bush backpedaling from previous stances, and Mr. Kerry carefully not saying much at all about certain things.

I'm personally loving to see "The American Military should not be used for nation-building" played over and over again.

What's the irony?  George Bush agrees with you; that's why we have a multinational coalition rebuilding Iraq and gave Iraqis back their sovereignty as quickly as was prudent.  Now it's a group effort for nation-building; it's not the American military doing it.

Bruce

[daveNYC]

Sorry, but USA + UK + all the countries that take the short bus to the UN doesn't count as multinational in my book.

It's the first military alliance that considered having Poland as a member a good thing.

[SirBruce]

Sorry, but USA + UK + all the countries that take the short bus to the UN doesn't count as multinational in my book.

Huh?  What, Australia, Italy, Japan, Spain, those countries?

What major countries are not onboard that were onboard in 1991?  Canada, France, and Germany.  Russia and China weren't on-board for either.  Surely you're not suggesting it's not multinational unless Canada, France, and/or Germany are involved?

Bruce

[daveNYC]

It's like the Rochester (NY) International Airport.  Technically it's an accurate label, but the reality of it is a bit on the pathetic side.

[SirBruce]

But your argument doesn't seem to make much sense.  It's hard to measure "value" of a country objectively, but surely there are myriads of combinations of multinational coalitions that don't include the "big" countries that would be far more pathetic.

I'd grant that have France, Germany, and Canada on board would make it a larger coalition, but it could be stronger still with Russia or China.

So however you value them, it seems to me any coalition of countries that includes US + UK + Italy + Japan + Australia is going to be, if not in the top quarter of all possible coalitions, at least in the top half.

Bruce

[koboshi]

Bruce, it's simple, there is a standard for multinational coalitions and that standard is the United Nations.  It may be the only coalition worth anything because it is representative of almost all of the countries of the world.  And the truth is that the administration went to them first because they knew it too.  They couldn’t get the world to agree with them so they just did what they wanted to do anyway.  That shows not only is the Coalition of the Willing a second rate coalition but that the administration knows it and won’t admit it.

[Alkiera]

I'd grant that have France, Germany, and Canada on board would make it a larger coalition, but it could be stronger still with Russia or China.

Of those, Canada could send what, 5 guys to help out?  Probably more than that really, but NO ONE talks about Canada's massive military power, because it has none.  France, the cultural birthplace of Canada, is only slightly better.

Germany at least was a strong military power at one point.  I really don't know what they've got militarily now.

Of those 5 countries, tho, it's been made pretty obvious that at least three of them didn't want to participate because they had good deals on cheap oil via the Oil for Food program that was set up by the UN.  Germany, France, and Russia were all making out like bandits, and there was evidence that they may have been buying additional oil under the table for cash so Saddam could fund his attempts to buy fissionables from Nigeria, and long range missles from North Korea.

It's hard to round up a posse from your friends when several of them are getting blowjobs under the table from the guy you want to string up.

--
Alkiera

[SirBruce]

Except for the fact that they DID have UN approval, and subsequent UN resolutions confirmed that.

There was a particular resolution that they didn't get through the UN, but so what?

The UN didn't lead the coalition of the first gulf war, or of the war in the Balkans, or of Afghanistan, or of World War II for that matter.  You're essentially saying that those weren't multinational coalitions either, in which case you're basically defining a phrase that is different from how most people use it just to support your own twisted notion of right and wrong.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Japan is sending playstations. All is well.

[WayAbvPar]

And Germany is sending some morale-boosting scat films. I hear Cartman's mom is a big star.

[Daeven]

Sorry, but USA + UK + all the countries that take the short bus to the UN doesn't count as multinational in my book.

So. In order for the invasion of Iraq to have been 'valid', we HAD to get  yet another Security Council Resolution, this time one which explicitly spelled out the 'Or Else' clause as we invade if IRaq continuted to violate the 1992 Cease Fire willy-nilly.

France is on record as indicating under no circumstance would they have 'authorized' the use of force in the Security Council - possibly because they were getting bussloads of Oil For Food Cash.

Therefore, in your opinion, France has an absolute authority and right to veto our Foreign policy for whatever reason they see fit.

Did I miss anything here? I must have missed the clause in our constitution that spells out the role of other nations in determining our security interests. I'd better go read up on how our government works some more, because I've obviously missed some really important parts.

[HaemishM]

It's just funny to hear Bush in 2000 talk about not sending our troops out to build nations, then in 2003, the rhetoric surrounding the occupation of Iraq is all about building Iraq into a peaceful democracy.

As for the multinational nature of the COTW, it is much less multinational than the one which we led in 1991. That coalition is the standard by which "multinational coalition" should be judged, IMO.

As for Canada, though it's an easy mark for a joke, the Canadians actually had a great history of honorable military service in WWII.

[Dark Vengeance]

It's just funny to hear Bush in 2000 talk about not sending our troops out to build nations, then in 2003, the rhetoric surrounding the occupation of Iraq is all about building Iraq into a peaceful democracy.

Amazing what 19 terrorists and 4 commercial airliners can do, isn't it?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

Amazing what one president can excuse because of what 19 terrorists do.

9/11 is not a valid excuse for Iraq. Period. The two are so unrelated as to be not on the same fucking planet.

[Dark Vengeance]

Amazing what one president can excuse because of what 19 terrorists do.

9/11 is not a valid excuse for Iraq. Period. The two are so unrelated as to be not on the same fucking planet.

Point being that 9/11 changed the world. Without 9/11, I doubt we would have made an effort to pre-emptively invade Iraq.

From that perspective, saying the two are completely unrelated is missing the whole point.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[daveNYC]

Therefore, in your opinion, France has an absolute authority and right to veto our Foreign policy for whatever reason they see fit.

Yeah, something like that.  Except I also said that we should also change our flag and language to match that of our beret wearing overlords.  

I said that the 'coalition of the willing' is actually the USA and a bunch of chumps who think that they can get political capital or cash out of helping us in Iraq.  Don't make it out like we've got some international mandate, it's just us, the UK and a bunch of wankers whose contributions (and convictions) aren't worth a whole hell of a lot.

[Bunk]

As for Canada, though it's an easy mark for a joke, the Canadians actually had a great history of honorable military service in WWII.

Thank you Haemish. I am now twitching slightly less than I was after reading Alkiera's post.

People can feel free to bash our military "might" because we really don't have any when it comes to miltary hardware, but don't bash our troops. We choose to utilize our troops primarily in UN Peacekeeping missions.  As of 2001, only about 2% of UN Peacekeepers are American.

Here are some Canadian military numbers for you:

Armed Forces

Today: 60,000 military personnel including 9,500 sailors, 19,000 soldiers, 13,000 air men and women and 18,500 administrative and support personnel. There are also 21,500 reservists.

Second World War: 60,000 men and women enlisted in Canada's armed forces in one month (September 1939) after the declaration of war.

First World War: More than 600,000 Canadians enlisted to fight in the First World War from 1914-1918.


Navy

Today: There are 34 warships and 9,500 sailors in Canada's navy.

Second World War: 23 Canadian ships were sunk by German U-Boats in the Battle of St. Lawrence alone.

First World War: During the course of the First World War, Canada's naval service grew to a force of 9,000 men and 100 ships.


Canadians on the front lines

Today: 2,300 armed forces have been deployed to combat terrorism; 1,500 Canadians deployed to NATO peacekeeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Second World War: More than one million served and approximately 45,000 died.

First World War: Almost 620,000 Canadians served in First World War and 66,000 died.

This was taken from the cbcnews website.

France, the cultural birthplace of Canada, is only slightly better.

Please note Alkiera - while I am proud of the French culture within my country, it is just a small fraction of the culture this country is based on.  Even if you just look at who "founded" us, we are French, English, and a whole slew of indigenous cultures.

On the west coast where I live, you'll see more influence from local native tribes than you will from France.

[Alkiera]

As for Canada, though it's an easy mark for a joke, the Canadians actually had a great history of honorable military service in WWII.

Thank you Haemish. I am now twitching slightly less than I was after reading Alkiera's post.

*snip useful Canadian military info*

France, the cultural birthplace of Canada, is only slightly better.

Please note Alkiera - while I am proud of the French culture within my country, it is just a small fraction of the culture this country is based on.  Even if you just look at who "founded" us, we are French, English, and a whole slew of indigenous cultures.

On the west coast where I live, you'll see more influence from local native tribes than you will from France.

My father is a former Canadian citizen, born in Kamloops, BC.  However, most of my experience with Canadians is where I live now, in Rochester, NY... where we see mostly Quebecian 'Frencher than France' Canadians; thus my comments.  I've been into western Canada only once, very long ago.

--
Alkiera

[Boogaleeboo]

Don't make it out like we've got some international mandate, it's just us, the UK and a bunch of wankers whose contributions (and convictions) aren't worth a whole hell of a lot.

People that were part of it and evidently "chumps"

Spain, Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, Poland, the Czechs, Turkey. Those are the bigger names in Europe you might know, not counting the....what, double that of smaller countries.

Asia?

Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, Australia, New Zealand.

Shit, we even had the Afghanis sending people. And the Kuwaitis, you know that had to give them a hard on.

Fuck man, the Columbians sent aid. NICARAGUA sent aid. Fucking African nations that can't feed their own people sent aid.

This isn't even NEAR a complete list, it's just the larger portion. Sure, some pulled out. And thousands and thousands of other troops didn't.

I want to know how those nations are "Chumps".

I'll take South Korea and Australia over Germany and France any day. I'll take those fucking Kiwis over Russia. There ARE a few dozen Canadians in Iraq.

What?

Yep.

So how exactly ISN'T this an internationally supported action?

Because the UN didn't say it's ok? Because France and Germany and Russia and China don't like it?

I'm trying to get the logic when people from all corners of the Earth send support how you say it's not an international effort.

[Bunk]

My father is a former Canadian citizen, born in Kamloops, BC.  However, most of my experience with Canadians is where I live now, in Rochester, NY... where we see mostly Quebecian 'Frencher than France' Canadians; thus my comments.  I've been into western Canada only once, very long ago.

--
Alkiera

Fair enough.  :)

[daveNYC]

Since this is in the 'back up your shit flinging with facts' thread, here's a link with some numbers.

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html#troops

The data is a shade out of date, but the more recent information was password protected on the NYTimes site someplace.  The only updated info I know of is the withdrawal of the Spanish and Philippine forces, and an increase in the number of Australians (+30).

Of course, the site I got if off of seems flaketacular, so take it for what it's worth.

[Boogaleeboo]

Still waiting on an explination for that "chumps" bit chief.

[Daeven]

Therefore, in your opinion, France has an absolute authority and right to veto our Foreign policy for whatever reason they see fit.

I said that the 'coalition of the willing' is actually the USA and a bunch of chumps who think that they can get political capital or cash out of helping us in Iraq.  Don't make it out like we've got some international mandate, it's just us, the UK and a bunch of wankers whose contributions (and convictions) aren't worth a whole hell of a lot.

So actually, we sort of agree. My point was that there was no way we could have achieved a UN sponsored 'International Mandate' thanks to France, and people kveching about said fact an in effect arguing that France should have veto power over our Foreign policy.

Of course, calling the UK, Australlia et al 'chumps' is a whole other can of worms and fundamentally disrespectful to those nations.

Hussein is no longer in power.  If being labeled a 'chump' is the price for preventing any futher events like Halabja in Iraq, then so be it.