Odd thought on friends and available categories

[redbird]

I mentioned this to wild_irises and she said to go ahead and post it.

If I'm ever tempted to think that my LiveJournal friends list is a valid cross-section of anything (with the possible exception of my social circle as a whole), I need only remember that there are more transgendered people on my friends list than there are Republicans (or Tories [1]). There may, in fact, be more space probes and fictional characters on my friends list than there are Republicans/Tories (and that is not an accurate reflection of my social circle as a whole).

If anyone who thinks I'm wrong about the numbers or proportions wants to come out as a Republican, please do.

[1] My first thought was just "Republicans," but considering the geographic distribution of my friendslist, it seemed only fair to throw Tories into the mix.

Comments

[quility.livejournal.com]

I see that you are getting frustrated by the fact that most(all?) of the other responders seem to be disagreeing with you - but if you are still up for a question:

I was wondering what the other remaining presidential hopefuls have said that makes you think their proposed approaches to the war on terror won't work?

Just curious to understand.

[snippy]

You've misread; I'm not frustrated that people disagree with me, it's the normal condition in my life. I'm just not interested in arguing about my political beliefs anymore--it seems like a pointless waste of time. No one is going to change my mind by arguing with me on Livejournal (or Usenet, for that matter), and I'm not going to change anyone else's mind (nor do I want to). I just want to be known for the truth of myself, so I explain what I think.

Maybe that's why I don't fit so well in fandom.

Why I don't think the other Democratic candidates's approaches to the war on terrorism will work: because they are concerned with the UN and the opinion of Europe, and with "why they hate us" as both an explanation and method of prevention of future terrorism. Because they don't believe in unilateral action against an enemy that has taken a unilateral action against us. Because they portray what the president has done as unilateral simply because he took action (authorized by both the UN and the U.S. Congress) without waiting for France and Germany to give their stamp of approval. There, that's my explanation of why I've rejected the other Democratic candidates on the issue of terrorism.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

authorized by both the UN and the U.S. Congress

Well, except that Bush lied to US Congress to get their authorisation (making claims that Iraq was a threat to the US, which it was not), and could not get UN authorisation for his attack on Iraq (because the UN was less easily fooled than Congress).

they don't believe in unilateral action against an enemy that has taken a unilateral action against us

And you seem to be confusing al-Qaeda with Iraq. No connection.

[avram]

When did Iraq take unilateral action against the US?