You're apparently uninterested in understanding or responding to my posts. You still have your ineffectual jabs, however. Kudos.

--Joe

Edit: If you'd like to question my facts or reasons, I'm up for conversation.

Editmk2: Well that just went poorly. Sorry everyone. (;

You have nothing of substance in your posts to understand or respond to. You provide no fact or reasons to question. You pretty much said flat out that you have no opinion of your own, and you just take sides against whoever happens to be more vocal.

There's nothing in there thats worth more than a couple of snide jabs.

Perhaps I did not make the purpose of my post clear.

This thread is about the conflict between those who support the war and those who oppose it. I thought that I might aid this discussion by offering my outsider perspective.

Let me be clear. I do not support the war at any time, even when I am arguing against those who oppose it. I argue when I see irrationality.

Perhaps snide jabs are an acceptable convention in this community, but know that I will not receive them well.

--Joe

Edit: Also, again to be clear, I said that I often side against the party that abrades me more, not the more vocal party.

How is the pro-war side suppose to be annoying?

They have nothing to complain about except for the people that oppose the war. The anti-war side is not getting what they want so they feel like they have to make their voice heard.

If you go to get your car fixed and they do a really good job with excellant service, how many people will you tell and how will you tell them? Now if you go to get your car fixed and they do a horrible job with horrible service, how many people will you tell and how will you tell them?

People like to complain and the anti-war side has something to complain about when the pro-war side doesn't so they will naturally be more annoying and in your face.

Because you accuse people that don't agree with you of not reasoning.
That makes for a crystal clear ball. :cool:

And yet how many Democratic 'dirty tricks' were to pervert the government of the United States? Some Democrats and Republicans did things to enrich themselves. But how many did it to subvert the power structure - the government (K-Street, Watergate) and to intentionally undermine other governments? Now the list becomes more one-sided.

I never stated that in my post.

I'd argue post-WW2 to the Civil Rights era...Thurmond, Dixiecrats, "Mississippi Burning," etc.

Both parties are shit, tw. Neither one has moral claim to being better than the other.

Did you notice name of a C-17 that Cheney was flying when meeting with so many Middle East leaders last weeks?
"Spirit of Strom Thurmond".

Spirit of Strom Thurmond carries Cheney into, out of hot spots

Any examples that didn't flip over to the Republicans during the Civil Rights movement?

The Senior Senator from West Virginia.

Isn't that like saying the Cellar is bad because a member is? :question:

HM, if we continue with your logic, it would only be fair to give the GOP their props for ending slavery and fighting to keep the country together.

No, that would be your logic, going back almost half a century for the D side of the D=R equation. My logic is that right now the dirty business is Republican. Right now the Democrats are better. Someday when they have power for a few terms, they'll probably get as corrupt as they were when they last lost power - which was nothing compared to the current Republican party in such a comparatively short time - but that's a someday. The Republicans are a right now.