The Logic Lifeline: Anti-war crowd attempts to thwart democracy

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Anti-war crowd attempts to thwart democracy

The champions of the people - liberals - are at it again: trying to thwart the democratic process. Liberals never can seem to win when playing by the rules. When it comes to laws of land, if they cannot win legislatively they turn the Constitution on its ear and turn judges into lawmakers. If one of their Senators wins a primary and due to corruption can't win, they will use their Democrat appointed judges to force the name on the ballot; even if it is after the legal deadline. However, when a Republican wins a primary and then resigns from the race well within legal deadlines, the Democrats sue to force him to run.

Now the anti-war liberals are again trying to thwart the democratic process in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman has legally obtained the right to be on the November ballot. He believes he has something to offer to the 40%+ Democrats that voted for him in the primary, independents and GOP voters. Polls seem to say the same thing. So on the heels of Lamont's win, the anti-war crowd is gnashing their teeth over the fact that it looks like Lieberman will win the general election. According to them, democracy can rot as they are trying legal means to remove Lieberman's name from the ballot. According to the Washington Post:

A group whose members describe themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party's banner.

This is, of course, absurd. It is simply another case of liberals attempting to thwart democracy to get their own way. I am no fan of Joe Lieberman's voting record where he votes the party line over 90% of the time. I can't even say he is consistently a man of principle as he sold some of his principles down the river during his run with Al Gore in 2000. However, he has the right to run as an independent. Anybody who tries to change that is saying to the voters of Connecticut that they have no right to vote for him.

My advice to this "peace" group is to stop trying to rob people of their Constitutional rights and get out and campaign for their candidate. Go out and show the country how a "McGovern-like"
movement has taken control of the Democrat party and remind us all of 1972. Of course liberals like these don't like working by the rules and in the open. They want to do their dirty work and move on to the next target.

24 Comments:

At 10:40 AM, SkyePuppy said…

In the prisons there is the term, "dead man walking." In Democratic circles there is the term "dead man voting."

The Democrats have been cheating for decades (can you say "Mayor Daley"?). What would make them change now?
At 4:26 PM, All_I_Can_Stands said…

Daley's most famous and blatant offense was the midnight destruction of MIGS Field. He could not win legislatively or judicially so he just sent in bulldozers while the rest of Chicago was asleep.

That is a very good example of thwarting the democratic process.
At 5:15 PM, All_I_Can_Stands said…

8-ball,

And this is relevant to the post in what way??
At 8:28 PM, Malott said…

Right Wing Agenda,

If you are going to drink, you need to have a designated blogger.
At 9:04 PM, Return to Westernesse said…

It's funny how RWA and others try to make those of us at home feel bad because troops are being recalled in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world. Exactly what do we expect of our brave men and women in the military? They are in the armed forces by their own choice, and military deployment is in their job description - in fact it IS their job. Soldiers fight. Why should we cry for them when they are asked to do their job? Might I remind you, RWA, of the many brave soldiers who fought for the entirety of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II, just to name a few?

You know what the best part is? If a soldier is unhappy with the fact that he is being asked to do his job more than he would like, he can leave the military and begin a new career. But I don't see our troops leaving in droves, complaining that they were treated unfairly, asked to fight actual battles in actual wars.

I guess I shouldn't answer RWA's (aka 8-ball's) arguments with such logic and common sense, since he doesn't return the favor, but I can't help myself.
At 11:42 PM, All_I_Can_Stands said…

I guess I shouldn't answer RWA's (aka 8-ball's) arguments with such logic and common sense, since he doesn't return the favor, but I can't help myself.

I don't think he can help spewing his schtick 8-ball comments either.
At 11:48 PM, Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

You know what the best part is? If a soldier is unhappy with the fact that he is being asked to do his job more than he would like, he can leave the military and begin a new career. But I don't see our troops leaving in droves, complaining that they were treated unfairly, asked to fight actual battles in actual wars.

HOw can they as when they think their hitch is done they get called back due to noone with any sense wants to fight,get amimed or die in Bush's Lie based mess.

Hey I think this 8-Ball guy has a point.

You PRO WAR clowns were gung Ho for this Cluster F*** in Iraq at the outset and now it is going south and all you got to offer is ridicule for those who question it and excuses for That moron ie Bush and his incompetents that pushed it.Why don't all you "PRO WAR" clowns antiup and join or better yet get your sons and daughters to do what the Bush Twins can't sober up and do ie SERVE...oh that's right Daddy ie DUBYA was AWOL with his nose in the bag during Vietnam so why should you bother. It's easier to kiss some faceless soldiers ass and let them do another tour with you and the rest of the RUSH Limbaugh Zit on the keester crew cheering them on from your cush state side home.

Your what Thomas Paine refered to as "THE SUNSHINE PATRIOT". Gung ho, but forever Gutless!
At 11:04 AM, Return to Westernesse said…

Joe,

I'm sorry, your claim that anyone who is pro-war, but doesn't serve in the military is a hypocrite, is completely illogical. By your standard, anyone who is pro-abortion had better go have or perform an abortion right away, or they have no standing. Anyone who is pro-law-enforcement, but is not a cop, is a liar. Anyone who is pro-union, but shops at Wal-Mart, is guilty of a hate crime. Anyone who is pro-sunny weather, but takes a job transfer to Seattle, must be exposed for the fraud that he is. Anyone who has an IQ higher than 85, and lives in a red state, is a Pharisee of the highest order. I like your logic, Joe. It's lots of fun.
At 2:23 PM, Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

Return to Westernesse said...
Joe,

I'm sorry, your claim that anyone who is pro-war, but doesn't serve in the military is a hypocrite, is completely illogical. By your standard, anyone who is pro-abortion had better go have or perform an abortion right away, or they have no standing. Anyone who is pro-law-enforcement, but is not a cop, is a liar. Anyone who is pro-union, but shops at Wal-Mart, is guilty of a hate crime. Anyone who is pro-sunny weather, but takes a job transfer to Seattle, must be exposed for the fraud that he is. Anyone who has an IQ higher than 85, and lives in a red state, is a Pharisee of the highest order. I like your logic, Joe. It's lots of fun.

11:04 AM

WHAT FREAKIN PLANET ARE YOU FROM? Let me guess the planet where the Goofy ass laws of Intelligent Design rule??? That guy 8- Ball is right about you on the right as you are not only brainwashed to the reality of things as they are Ie Iraq is in Civil war etc. and that if you have no arguement, excuses ( that you guys are so good at these days) you resort to conceptually flawed Non Sequetors or just plain Idiotic BS.

So following that reasoning: Iraq is in Civil war and Lebannon is in ruins, but all the fighting is happening in the Mid East thus we here at home will be safe from any terrorist attacks..."MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"...right.
At 4:44 PM, Return to Westernesse said…

Joe,

In all of your ranting, you did not address my point. And that is, do you honestly believe your own point, that in order to be unhypocritically pro-war, one must serve in the military? If you do honestly believe this, then accuse me all you want of "conceptually flawed Non Sequetors [sic]" or "Idiotic BS," but you are the one with the logic problem, not me.

By the way, if you want to sound extra intelligent by accusing me of a big college level word like non sequitur, you may want to spell it right.
At 11:56 PM, Anonymous said…

r2w,

First off, congrats on your promotion around here. I can honestly say I hardly knew ya. I'm sure my invitaion was lost in the email or somethin.

I just can't leave a good off-topic tangent well enough alone...

Many people want to paint the War On Terror as a definitive struggle for the survival of western civilization. I've seen this blog compare it to WWII. If 'you' (using the rhetorical 'you') sincerely believe that western culture is in danger, or that this situation rises to the level of WWII or even Vietnam, and then you do nothing other than type, that says something about your true convictions and/or courage. I certainly wouldn't sit out WWII or any ohter battle in which our way of life was at stake.

Lets say its 200 years from now and 'your' (rhetorical) vision has proven to come true: western culture has been conquered by Islam. You correctly foresaw this and chose to participate by typing away. Here's a message from a future generation who comes to learn about your work in these critical times:
Gee, thanks brave hero.

There is something your earlier post that I find really distasteful, that notion that the troops are hired hands, that they have to do their job. I think our relationship to the troops is much different from that. Its more a convenient thing, more of a "them is an extension of us in the most important ways" relationship, I think; a relationship that has no comparison whatsoever to being a non-cop supporter of law enforcement.
At 7:18 AM, All_I_Can_Stands said…

paw,

I'll let R2W address his comments, but I will respond to your WWII point. I have pointed out similarities to WWII on specific levels. The level it has not reached (yet) is magnitude. At this point it requires less troops than WWII to adress. We still have many troops stationed in other places and at home that could be pulled into the conflict as needed. If the magnitude rose and all available troops were moved and there was still a need, you would have a point. So far our volunteer force suffices. This does not mean that there is no room for criticism on the choices of how many or where to deploy. Mistakes in those areas are made in every war.
At 9:14 AM, Return to Westernesse said…

paw,

Thanks for the compliments. It was fun filling in for a while, though quite time-consuming. I don't know how AICS does it so well while holding down a demanding job and meeting all the needs of his family.

AICS stole my thunder in response to your WWII comparison. While it is true that this war has been compared to WWII, and even called WWIII by some, the demand levels for soldiers and equipment don't even compare. We can fight a more devastatingly efficient war with far less manpower, which is of course a good thing. I will speak for myself, and no one else, and say to you that if the demands became anything close to the demands for troops in WWII, I would do my part (that is, if they could whip a fat, thirty-something, way out of shape guy into good enough condition so as not to be a hazard to his fellow soldiers.) And don't forget that it wasn't just troop levels; the entire nation got involved in the "war effort" during WWII - men, women, and children. The fact is that right now, that amount of involvement is just not necessary. Nor should it be. One of the very few legitimate functions of government is the protection of our nation by building up a strong military, and our government has evidently succeeded in that area (I might add, thanks to Ronald Reagan and two Bushes in the White House. Boy, that statement's gonna rile some people up.)

I'm sorry that you find it distasteful that I believe soldiers have a job to do. If you'll notice, it is not, by and large, the soldiers complaining about their job, but those sitting at home watching, largely politicians who want to make it seem as though Bush is an evil tyrant for commanding the troops to do the job they signed up for.
At 10:35 AM, Anonymous said…

Glad to see all the Republicans, so-called "conservatives" and Reich-wingers lining up in support of "Democrat" Joe Lieberman now that he's not trying to unseat George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Talk about a bunch of flaccid flip-floppers.

You learned well from the color coded terror alert system. Your doom and gloom headline and post about thwarting democracy is quite a piece of work. Ooooh, those SCARY nasty lib-ruls! Your fans will uncritically eat it up despite the fact of the matter being that these folks in CT are merely trying to get Lieberman to be honest with himself and everyone else. I know that honesty is a difficult idea for you to understand, but you should try since it is the basis of any good Christian value set.

Lieberman left the Democratic Party and is running as an Independent, therefore he should be ineligible for Party affiliation and support. That's basic logic. Lieberman is trying to have it both ways, and you're happy as a clam about that. But if we equally applied your twisted attempt at logic, Democrats running for election should be screaming "foul" for not being given support by the Republican Party.

What a maroon.
At 11:34 AM, Anonymous said…

What's even more transparent is the conspicuous lack of the name Schlesinger anywhere here.
At 12:53 PM, All_I_Can_Stands said…

Glad to see all the Republicans, so-called "conservatives" and Reich-wingers lining up in support of "Democrat" Joe Lieberman now that he's not trying to unseat George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Talk about a bunch of flaccid flip-floppers.

Again missing the obvious point that I do not support Lieberman to win. I thought that was very obvious when I wrote:

I am no fan of Joe Lieberman's voting record where he votes the party line over 90% of the time. I can't even say he is consistently a man of principle as he sold some of his principles down the river during his run with Al Gore in 2000.

Please, please try to read more carefully. My point is that Lieberman went through proper channels to get his name on the ballot. If CT does not want him, all they have to do is pass on voting for him. To push to remove his name from the ballot cannot be described as pro-democracy.
At 12:04 PM, Anonymous said…

"If you'll notice, it is not, by and large, the soldiers complaining about their job..."
Disagree, even with the "by and large" modifier. The active officers I talk to (Air Force and Special Forces) reluctantly and somewhat guiltily but very clearly express quite a lot of concern, but I suppose this is hearsay since it can't be validated.

Even if you don't buy that troop levels, morale, and readiness are currently hurting and could be helped by your participation (it would help) think of the message we could send our enemies (enemies as defined by the conservative media). With all the conservative gnashing about Iran and others testing our will and pushing the envelope, imagine what the situation would be if we could field a couple hundred thousand fresh troops who eagerly volunteered - former project managers and sales people motivated by the importance of the stakes, people just itching to irradiate our enemies and anyone in the near vicinity by any means necessary. That would be a fearsome show of force. Something like that WOULD make a difference. What a convincing demonstration of national will ! No one could doubt it! Tehran is a city of 12 million people. You think they're worried about occupation with the lessons we've learned in Iraq and with our current troop levels? Yet no where in the conservative media do I ever hear a call to join up. Never even a hint. Lots of thank you's to those that did, but never a call to arms that involves signing up, just a lot of bluster about taking care of the treasonous enemies within. I suspect that's because it would be bad for ratings. It’s the only thing that makes sesnse to me.

I keep hearing over and over again that it's my fault that our will is doubted, and that having our will doubted will lead to the destruction of our civilization. Well I'm paying attention to the arguments arising from your side, and I don't find myself persuaded. So for now I'm standing my ground. Given that situation, there is still something you folks can do to help ensure that the worst of your visions does not come to pass.

(Again, using 'you' in a general sense and trying to put words in your mouth).
At 5:12 PM, Anonymous said…

Please, please try to read more carefully. My point is that Lieberman went through proper channels to get his name on the ballot. If CT does not want him, all they have to do is pass on voting for him. To push to remove his name from the ballot cannot be described as pro-democracy. AICS

I am not the one who needs to read more carefully here. The people who are the subject of this post are not trying to remove Lieberman's name from the ballot. To say they are is to tell a bold-faced lie.
At 11:05 PM, Return to Westernesse said…

Paw said,

The active officers I talk to (Air Force and Special Forces) reluctantly and somewhat guiltily but very clearly express quite a lot of concern, but I suppose this is hearsay since it can't be validated.

No, I will not require you to validate your sources. I believe you that active officers have expressed concern to you. But how many have you talked to? What is the percentage of active officers? And expressing concern is not the same thing as complaining that we are in a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam."

And as to your argument about businessmen leaving their jobs and joining the military, sure, an influx of hundreds of thousands of new soldiers would boost morale, but is it necessary to accomplish the mission? In WWII the involvement of the entire nation was an absolute necessity, or we would have failed. We are not even close to approaching that kind of need for troop levels. Besides, the argument that was made that instigated this line of debate wasn't that we could improve things by enlisting. It was that those of us who are pro-war must enlist, or we are hypocrites.
At 9:08 AM, Anonymous said…

This entire post is predicated on a lie. The people who are the subject of this post are not trying to remove Lieberman's name from the ballot. To say they are is to tell a bold-faced lie.
At 11:19 AM, Anonymous said…

So AICS admits to just reading a headline as his primary source material for this post, and then tries to blame AP for his not reading the article. You'll need to scroll to the end of the comments to see it.

"You can see from the title why I thought it said what I said. And none other than our old pal Associated Press as the ultimate source. AP gets me into more trouble." - AICS

AICS didn't even read the whole article he quoted for this post, then argued his point over multiple comments and THEN had the audacity to ask me to "please please try to read more carefully." Incredible.

This is exactly the kind of sloppy thinking and research that regularly goes on at this blog and proves why it is correctly called "fact-challenged" so often.
At 4:38 PM, All_I_Can_Stands said…

Patriot,

You really take the cake. You interpret my statement that the Title shows where the confusion was on my part and interpret that I only read the title.

Yes, in this case I did not read as carefully as I should have. This does not let you off the hook for the times you did not read what I wrote carefully enough. But since I rebuked you for doing something I am here guilty of, I am open to the charge of a moment in hypocrisy. Since you then rebuked me for something you also did, we were both in these instances guilty of not reading carefully and hypocrisy.

I still think that as both of these attacks on Lieberman were nearly simultaneous that it is very likely an "I hit him high, you hit him low" scenario. No proof. Just opinion.
At 11:35 AM, Anonymous said…

You interpret my statement that the Title shows where the confusion was on my part and interpret that I only read the title. - AICS

You are really flailing and floundering here, withering under pressure and get even sloppier.

My charge was that you did not read the whole article and that charge is quite unambiguously stated: AICS didn't even read the whole article he quoted for this post, then argued his point over multiple comments and THEN had the audacity to ask me to "please please try to read more carefully." Incredible. All you needed to do was carefully read even the first half of the story and you would have discovered that these people WERE NOT trying to kick Lieberman off the ballot.

Witness the sloppy thinking get even sloppier:

Yes, in this case I did not read as carefully as I should have. This does not let you off the hook for the times you did not read what I wrote carefully enough. But since I rebuked you for doing something I am here guilty of, I am open to the charge of a moment in hypocrisy. Since you then rebuked me for something you also did, we were both in these instances guilty of not reading carefully and hypocrisy.-AICS

Trying to cover your own sloppiness with a "he did it too" attitude is juvenile. And in this instance it's also patently incorrect. Please point out exactly HOW is it that it was ME that did not read YOU carefully enough? Was it this instance?

Again missing the obvious point that I do not support Lieberman to win. - AICS

I never once said you supported Lieberman to win. Even when baited you didn't say you want Schlesinger to win or that you want Lieberman to lose for that matter. It cannot be denied that your stance in this post is supportive of Lieberman, but I never said you supported him to win. Look carefully. Read carefully. Find where I said that and you'll get a gold star on your report card. Sorry to say that I already know that there'll be no gold star for you today.

YET AGAIN it is you and not me who has failed to read carefully. In this light your gee aren't I so generous and gracious line of being "open to the charge of a moment in hypocrisy" is pitiful enough on its own. But digging yourself into a deeper hole, you go on to say (but unable to point out and prove) that I'm equally guilty of your sloppiness. This is even more pathetic than if it had been merely just a juvenile tit-for-tat about me supposedly trying to "get off the hook." I was never ON the hook. But since you were on an open-mouth/insert-foot roll, you had to start this all off with "You really take the cake" and now look who's got pie on their face AGAIN. I would ask what kind of masochist you are and why you don't quit before you make a bigger fool of yourself, but that's not it. It's clear you are one of those people who is incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions and just admitting when you are wrong. You blame AP when it's your own laziness that got you in trouble. You keep trying to make your mistake seem less bad by suggesting someone else is equally guilty, even when they're not.

YET AGAIN, this is exactly the kind of sloppy thinking and research that regularly goes on at this blog and proves why it is correctly called "fact-challenged" so often. This is not an isolated case.
At 3:44 PM, All_I_Can_Stands said…

Your points are read and taken.

The Logic Lifeline

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Anti-war crowd attempts to thwart democracy

24 Comments:

Contributors

Previous Posts