Profile for Najosz Thjsza Kjras

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Alorael for Admin in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #0
We need more administrators. The ones we have now are doing the job OK (well, except Linda, when she shows up), but more admin activity could do a lot to restrict the level of nastiness possible in periods of administrative inertness and make instant negative feedback for villainy easier to implement.

Alorael is perfectly qualified.

1) His post count exhibits the two things he is capable of: hanging around for a long time all over the place.
2) He is blameless and his elevation would engender fairly little controversy.
3) He is a Jew.
4) Some other reason.

Elevate him now!

[ Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:39: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Now is the time ... in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #13
'Thug work'? The bosses hardly need 'thugs' when they exercise executive power, do they? :P

And at the very least it allowed them a position in the system at all. The alternative, and what the 'anti-corruption' activists wanted, was their being ridden out of the country on a rail and sent back to drudgery in a homeland that they wanted desperately to escape.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Now is the time ... in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #11
quote:
Originally written by Ktgsvgnfgn:

No matter the system, the end result is always the same: Oppression.

In every system of government that was, is, or will be will exist on some form of subjugation. There will always be those select few who will dominate the masses.

Even if there is a revolution that replaces the existing corrupt government with a new pure one, that new idealistic government will become just as corrupt as its predecessor.

Which is a convenient argument to make if you're an oppressor or benefitting from the current oppression, to be sure.

PS: Corruption is the opposite of oppression. It will probably surprise you to learn that the storied corruption of the political machines in the late 19th century US was an integrative mechanism - new immigrants were given jobs, cheap housing, and social/networking services in exchange for their votes. Most of the movement against the political machines was based in nativist contempt for Catholics and other filthy immigrants.

Thomas Nast, the famous editorial cartoonist, made a number of cartoons viciously attacking Catholic and Italian immigrants. While those might seem insane and unfortunate to us, to him they went part-and-parcel with his fight against the like of Boss Tweed.

[ Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:19: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Thou hast not shown thy compassion well. Be more kind unto others! in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #44
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Every time you acknowledge me only serves to make my ego stronger.
You sure do like contempt. Keep it up, hoss.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Boo! in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #65
quote:
Originally written by Alcritas:

IMAGE(http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ubb/icons/icon8.gif) Boo!
AIEE
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
What a long strange trip... in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #19
I joined the Exile community around the time of the Windows release of Blades of Exile. I was less than 10 years old.

I was 14 when I was a mod.

Food for thought.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #96
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

Yes, but most of the people here know that impeachment doesn't necessarily mean conviction. But Clinton should have been convicted.
Clinton got impeached because of what the media derisively (but accurately) refers to as the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. The anti-Clinton frothing mania on the behalf of the Republicans was pretty insane in the late 90s; Clinton was impeached over lying under oath while being raked over the coals for his sexual infidelities. That millions of taxpayer dollars were spent by reactionary lunatics to trap Clinton between a rock and a hard-on was completely unacceptable.

No countervailing vast conspiracy exists on the left, which explains why, even though the Dems solidly control one house and have a decent lock on the other, there's been no serious talk of impeachment.

This is after admittedly waging a war on faulty intellgence - at the very least criminal negligence and at the worst either treason or crimes against humanity, depending on whether you're worried about US or international law.

[ Monday, March 26, 2007 22:41: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Thou hast not shown thy compassion well. Be more kind unto others! in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #41
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

This would of course be easier if our moderators actually moderated the discussion, giving warnings (and harsher penalties) for flames and spam.
Your faith in the system is misplaced. The end is nigh.

IMAGE(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9250/tullyflague1.gif)

This is why I have stopped flaming, Slarty: while there is the occasional newbie who really does something odious and deserves nothing but scorn, Tully is a cretin and doesn't have the excuse of not knowing better.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #42
Wow, way to give me any incentive to address anything you have to say. You throw a bunch of quotes from the Democrats - who neither I nor any major left-wing critic of the war has ever identified directly with - and then you go on to feign the vapors over being called ignorant. Well, gee, some people would call that charity - I'm not willing to assume you're evil right off the bat, but if you'd like I can jump directly to that from now on.

Jewels, you're a reactionary cretin and I truly do not have time to deal with your nonsense. When I do have the time I might give your rambling pap a once-over to see if I can point out anything that makes you look like even more of a lying buffoon than usual, but I make no promises.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #34
quote:
Originally written by WiKiSpidweb:

I do recall the Desert Fox operations during Clinton's tenure. My understanding had been that Saddam once again was obstructing a full inspection, not allowing access to certain palaces, citing a need for privacy.
Nope. At the very least not enough to modify the validity of the UN's assessment in any substantial way.

The obstructions were few and moderate. Blix acknowledged them, but rightly assessed that Iraq would not be capable of stockpiling, manufacturing, or maintaining weapons of mass destruction in the small areas cited as private.

And given that several UN weapons instructors took bribes from the US government in order to spy on the Iraqi government's internal affairs - and that this was basically an open secret - Saddam's moderation in resisting inspectors was pretty astounding.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Controvers-A-Poll in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #25
quote:
Originally written by Sarasaphilia:

quote:
Originally written by Nemesis.:

This thread and its creator should be found and shot on sight for complete incompetance.

EDIT: Well I'm sort of kidding… :P

Wow. Even I wouldn't go beyond hassling them verbally. You want to shoot them?

Way to not understand simple hyperbole. I'm certain that's doing great for your ostensibly humorous so-called webcomic.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 19:07: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Where You At Now? in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #44
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:


Alec, you've got such a sharp mind. What were you doing with it in high school?

I was generally too busy sharpening it to bother showing it off.

To wit: having a 2.4 was the result of getting no lower than a B on any test (or an A on any non-math-and-science test) and never submitting any homework less substantial than a term paper.

I had better things to do than to spend two hours a night demonstrating I knew something four or five times in a row.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 18:45: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Helphelphelphelp. Please? in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #8
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

Sorry, Saras... the only possible reason I can think of to lurk around your forum is to watch you imitate the mods here. It's kinda funny.
Yeah, it always amuses me how desperate newbies are to have power.

See, I can lock threads with a thought. ^_^
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Where You At Now? in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #39
quote:
Originally written by Death Twisted:

Seventh grade. GPA= 3.8.
I graduated with a 2.4. UNLV technically shouldn't have accepted me.

But I got a perfect verbal score and a fairly high math score on my SAT, so I got in automatically.

The more you know.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Controvers-A-Poll Mk.II in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #3
MUDA DA

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 13:13: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #31
quote:
Originally written by WiKiSpidweb:

While at this point I realize that Iraq was a mistake, one question still nags at me. If Saddam didn't have any WMDs (and the consensus is that he didn't) why the hell did he doom his regime by refusing to give complete access to UN inspectors, as he was required to my the treaty he signed at the end of the first Gulf War?
The idea that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq conflates the 2003 invasion and occupation with the 1998 bombing campaign, Desert Fox, orchestrated by the US under the Clinton administration. In 1998, the US asked weapons inspectors to leave and proceeded to bomb suspected WMD-making facilities with cruise missiles.

In 2002, Saddam Hussein invited UN weapons inspectors into the country in order to satisfy the UN resolution putting the burden on Iraq to prove it had no WMDs. Whereas Clinton's bombardment was welcomed by the UN as adding teeth to their complaints of non-cooperation with weapons inspection, Bush's invasion was regarded as an effort to gainsay Hans Blix's inspections in Iraq, which had been given as complete access to Iraqi facilities as the boundaries of national sovereignty allow to inspectors and demonstrated pretty conclusively they had no WMD ambitions.

I'm certain the conflation on your part is the result of a simple and inoffensive misapprehension; the right-wing noise machine has been very busy trying to reconstruct Clinton, buffing and adding truthiness to every absurd allegation thrown at him by the lunatic reactionary faction in the 90s and transposing every policy of his they have any reason to admire to one of the Bushes. Very little effort is made by the media to approach the Clinton administration honestly.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 13:00: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #28
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Whatever the true reason was for the war, the reality is that it was sold to Congress and the American public largely on false pretenses, lubricated by the climate of fear generated by September 11th. There was never any truly "just" rationale for this "intervention," however.
It could have been just, but it was conceived by villains for villainy. There's nothing good that can come of that, and we face the black harvest of Bush & co's greed now.

At least only about 3500 Coalition forces have died - the Iraqis have, by conservative estimates, suffered 650,000 dead since the invasion.

In other words, we've inflicted more victims on Iraq in four short years than Saddam did in his entire tenure.

USA! USA! USA!

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 11:59: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #27
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

I'm surprised, Alec. You're apparently completely unfamiliar with the concept of liberal "revisionist" history. Not all history books devote whole chapters to Washington and the cherry tree at the expense of mentioning that he did in fact own slaves.
That's academia. I bet you less than half of the people off the street could identify Washington as a slaveowner.

quote:
It is true that many historians don't like asking, "What if...?" This dislike mostly stems, I think, from the difficulty of answering the question, compared to the question, "What was...?" There is still a fair bit of discussion, though, about Truman dropping the atom bomb on Japan. Historians do argue whether this was a good thing to do or not.

Likewise, there has been a great deal of investigation into how exactly we got into Vietnam, which was a long and complicated process, perhaps as long and complicated as how we got into Iraq, so I don't doubt that historians even now are doing their best to figure out how the heck we got into Iraq. If it proves demonstrable — and this will take time and a great burden of evidence, not just probable speculation — that we went there for corporate greed, I don't doubt that some textbooks will attempt to paper this over, but some others will write it.

As for what we should have done, well, eh. Like I said, historians have trouble proving what we should have done, but they don't have any trouble pointing out what we could have done, and I don't doubt that they will here, too.

The problem is that the history books are a lot different from the history. If you ask people about how Vietnam ended, it was the antiwar activists destroying the morale of the fighting forces, and there's countless (entirely fabricated) stories about soldiers getting spat on back home.

There's a difference between history as it is taught in the books and history as it is taught on late-night TV. The latter is a lot more influential, and that's why the American withdrawal from Vietnam is, preposterously, considered a conscious decision forced on the American government by the radicals among the American left instead of a recognition of the futility of holding onto South Vietnam by the military establishment in the face of serious failures.

Serious history is almost unanimous in the military-fatigue angle; pop-history is almost unanimous in the commie-activist-flower-power angle. (Whether the activists are considered brave antiwar crusaders or heinous communists, they're still, wrongly, either credited or blamed for the American withdrawal pretty much everywhere except scholarly history.)

When academics write the history books on Iraq, they'll recognize first and foremost the military fatiguing of the occupation and pushing for withdrawal - if it's anything like Vietnam, anyway - because as soon as the brass lose enthusiasm for a project like this it tends to decay.

But when Jay Leno cracks wise about it in fifteen years, I seriously doubt his first concern is going to be academic rigor.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 11:52: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #26
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

quote:
Originally written by Redstart:

I share your concerns about how this will all look decades from now Alec, but you should remember that history is not written only by Americans. With the attention this whole travesty has received, bystanders (meaning countries not directly involved in the war or occupation) will have a whole lot more information to write their history books with. Iraq will be remembered for what it was.
What don't you remember "there is only those who are with us and those who are against us"?

Silly Alec, have you forgotten? History is written by the Zionist Council as it has been for the past 5000 years. Of all people, you were the last I'd expect to forget that. Oh, and yes, I do plan on eating Christian blood with great relish in the coming Passover holiday.

I don't blame you; Christian babies are delicious.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #17
Iraq will not be remembered, as it should, as a graveyard of possibilities. History will not be long spent poring over what could have changed if the money we poured into Iraq had been devoted to building functional civil (instead of industrial and oil) infrastructure, if we had managed the warring factions with more tact, taking that inevitable nasty step of playing the strongest against the weakest in order to get our reforms through. History will not wonder what kind of paradise Iraq could have been if America and its craven lap-dogs had as its first priority anything but throwing out lucre to their corporate masters.

History will not ask whether the involvement of the UN would have legitimized the grand mission for humanity some were fooled into believing was at work - if it ever does, it will be to try and discredit the UN rather than to try and discredit those who scorned it.

History will not long remember the preposterously false bumper-sticker patriotism of the right wing contrasted with their golden boys' cost-benefit-analyzing the unfortunate souls on the ground to a bloody pulp. There will be no memory of 'supporting the troops' by forcing an administration on them intent on stripping them of materiel and the benefits of service.

History will not ask what things would be like if someone like Truman had managed Iraq instead of someone like Coolidge.

That is not how history works. History will invent facile lies about Cindy Sheehan spitting on the troops as they return home to a nation that denied them the numbers they needed to gain victory. Bush will not be remembered as a heinous criminal who squandered the great potential of the mission to democratize once and for all in the name of nepotist greed, but as a quixotic crusader foiled by the treason of liberal activists.

If we intend history to say anything different than that, we had better start cracking some heads.

[ Monday, March 19, 2007 01:29: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #13
My understanding of the news is that the election days tend to promote something vaguely like a general truce. Of course: nobody, but nobody, wants to encourage Coalition forces to stay any longer by showing the vaguest hint of political instability.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #11
quote:
Originally written by Jewels:

We went to Iraq because both the Republicans and the Democrats thought that Hussein had WMD's. Please don't make me dig out Clinton's quotes again. He thought Hussein had WMD's, too, long before Bush jr got into the runnings. He just didn't do anything about it.
Excuse me? Clinton bombed the place repeatedly, enforced a no-fly zone, and helped engineer the continuing sanctions. And the record indicates that not once between Desert Storm and the occupation did Saddam have either the resources or the inclination to build WMDs.

To the extent Iraqi WMDs were a problem at all, Clinton was on top of it. By contrast, if Iraq had ever had WMDs, they aren't there any more. Thank god those WMDs probably don't exist, because if they did some pretty nasty people would probably have them thanks to Bush.

quote:
I, personally, am ready to just pull out, but only because I am unattached to anyone in Iraq and I can handle that country, way over there, going to pot. My compassion for the innocents there has worn thin. It's probably not a good thing on my part but it's where I am.
'Going' to pot? The Iraqis seem to be doing a pretty good job of running their own government. On election days, the insurgent groups literally stopped with the attacks and started guarding polling places.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the pessimism over the ability of Iraq to govern itself is motivated by a sort of subtle but awful racism - the same that feared when Saddam was executed that riots would break out, because obviously the Iraqis just love to beat each other up for no good reason like the children they are.

The large majority of violence in Iraq is directed towards coalition forces; polls conducted in Iraq consistently find that less than the margin of error think US forces are doing any good there or want them to remain there.

Why did we wage this war? Not because of WMDs (although that is the official excuse); that was a reason drummed up after the fact and drilled into the people's heads by the right-wing noise machine. It was a sordid little lie that Bush blew out of proportion to support an existing scheme.

The invasion of Iraq resulted in billions (with a B) in no-bid contracts being shovelled into infrastructure contractors and the oil industry. Iraqi oil accounts for around 20-30% of the world's production; even a fraction of that tantalizing crude would more than make the sacrifices endured by the American people work it for American oil companies, which alongside the defense industry has its hand firmly up Bush's ass.

It's no coincidence that PNAC's hilariously nutty plot to dominate the world apparently starts with an apocalyptic fixation on Iraq as a major enemy - probably a result of how deep the PNAC wants Israel's you-know-what inside it, because Iraq has been the Israeli establishment's public enemy #1 since Sadat. But the huge amounts of oil and strategic location help too.

Thank God the PNACers are corporate lifers rather than anyone who had any reason for geopolitical acuity; the monomania on Iraq, while nasty for us and for them, will torpedo them in a nasty hurry and completely discredit their idiot behavior. They jumped into Iraq under the absurd assumption that the Iraqis would be as enthusiastic about it as the French were about being liberated during WW2, and in apparent complete ignorance of the fact that Iran is right next door.

Note, and note well, that the reason for this war was not any of the stated reasons; it was to satisfy the ridiculous political yen of Bush's handlers. Planning for the invasion of Iraq began on September 12, 2001; so far as I can tell, they still haven't started planning the occupation.

If they had any legitimate or practical reason to be there besides bilking billions from oil (courtesy the people of Iraq) and infrastructure contracts (courtesy the American taxpayer), the occupation wouldn't be as catastrohpically underfunded and poorly-planned as it is.

But Jewels, as I expected she would, blames Bush for the mess to the extent she has a problem with it at all. Of course: Bush is a wonderful fall-guy and allowing him to play the patsy prevents us from having to take the ugly step of wondering why he's done us so horribly wrong. You don't even have to get all the way through how he's done so.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Controvers-A-Poll in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #13
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

In general, Russians who live in Asia are no more Asian than Americans who live in the United States are Native American.
Try telling that to Euro-reactionaries. :P

It is seriously a part of the political consciousness of every right-winger west of the Don that Russia isn't really European. One of the big appeals of the EU as a social project to European conservatives is that it allows them to attempt to reconstruct the meaning of 'Europe' as a cultural-geographic signifier, gerrymandering out the Balkans and Turkey and Russia and throwing in Israel and what's left of the colonies.

They're ignorant jerks, obviously, but it's an important kind of ignorance.

I think calling the author of this poll a fool would be basically redundant at this point, but allow me to point out what nobody else so far has: there's no way to adequately provide for 'Religion', because either you rely on self-identification and get a thousand answers or rely on trait-identification and wind up with a thousand well-organized and largely incorrect answers.

A lot of Protestants don't really think Catholics are Christian, and quite a few Catholics don't think their schismatic bretheren are Christian either. Each of the big two branches of Islam thinks of the other as at best heretical and at worst basically pagan.

Just because you don't understand the difference between the two (which various Administration figures, amazingly, have copped to since invading a goddamn fissure point between the two groups!) doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist and isn't very real to the people involved. Buddhism is divided in partes tres, and I couldn't even name them - but the theological and political dispute that division engenders is very alive, even though the population center for Buddhism, China, isn't even officially religious any longer.

Race, sex, and religion have only one thing in common: they are a compromise between how you identify you and how others identify you. Transvestites take on characteristics of the other sex temporarily for whatever reason; transsexuals intend to change physical sex, and the 'genderqueer' (if that is the appropriate term) reject the rigidity of gender altogether. 'Male/female' is a dumb distinction and shouldn't be made as firmly as it is.

Lumping religion into 5, 10, or 100 categories is losing out on a lot, and ignores at the very least how others would regard someone. (A known and active Catholic who claims to be Shinto and knows absolutely nothing about Shintoism or even Japan could only be taken so seriously.)

Race is meaningless; it carries only the meaning we wish for it to. The Amhara in Ethiopia, for instance, consider themselves the only truly white people on earth: they think of Europeans as red and their Tigray and other neighbors as black. We regard them as black or some kind of brown or yellow.

We say 'Chinese' and it means something to us, but there are Han Chinese who do not use the Chinese script or speak Mandarin and there are those who speak Mandarin as a first language (even before the PROC made it official) and are not Han in the least. Except as far as it concerns the inhabitants of China's political boundaries, the term 'Chinese' only carries meaning because something comes to our mind when we think about it. To someone in China, it would be largely meaningless except in that border-related sense I mentioned, which includes large numbers of Monglians, Vietnamese, and muslim Turkmens, along with dozens of ethnicities we regard as 'Chinese' along with the Han.

Labels suck. They should be left to experts, if they're touched at all, and whenever anyone deals with them they should be understood as completely and utterly arbitrary.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The U.S. and Iraq in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #3
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

Early in this dacade President Bush declared war on Iraq, claiming Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. However, Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs before the U.S. ever invaded. Many people suspect that it was for the oil there, bit if that's true, why hasn't hw withdrawn the soldiers out of Iraq? Of course, some people could claim that it was to set up a republic there and overthrow Hussein, but Iraq wasn't the only country like that. The U.S. isn't minding its own business. Really, America should focus on overthrowing its own corrupt government.
I don't know the real reason Bush had for invading Iraq, but me and many other Americans are fed up with Bush and the war in Iraq. For some reason, Americans don't want to hear people like me who say the American government is corrupt. However, people in other countries seem to know everything about the falsity of America's "freedom." I don't consider myself an American, even though I've lived there all my life; mainly becaused I don't give into to all the brainwashing by the government.
I've said stuff like this in America, but most Americans will deny anything you say. I spoke out here, because the members of this forum seem to be rational.

You live in northern Nevada, which is basically part of Utah, which is one of three states (along with Nebraska and Idaho) that actually maintained a favorable opinion of Bush in the last polls I read.

While what you have to say might not have much traction there, bear in mind that only around 18% of Americans polled supported the troop surge and more than half - around 60% or so - support an immediate or gradual withdrawal from Iraq.

Even down south in Clark County, where people are somewhat less enthusiastic about guns and Jesus and evading taxes, the vox populi is pretty comparatively conservative. A lot of the rest of the country has its head on straight and would nod along to what you have to say. We're just nuts here.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Where You At Now? in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #25
Political science sophomore (possibly becoming a senior next year), and I don't intend to leave higher education without at least two PhDs.

Poli sci is definitely one of them; my specialization in the politics of oppression means that the other is liable to be either history or sociology. (Economics is a horrible thing to have to study in an American university.)

My career arc ends with one, two, or all of tenure, the bar, and political office.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00

Pages