Bachmann's Iowa Campaign Manager Dumps Her

[Flagg]

Well, it is hardly possible to get a worse record than Obama on civil liberties....

Uganda, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, all of fucking Africa really. We also don't jail people for teaching their dogs to Heil Hitler. I know it's damning with faint praise, but your statement was just outright idiotic.

[Count Chocula]

Oh, I have Libertarian leanings - was a member of the Libertarian party for much of my twenties - but I'm no fan of Ron Paul. The only way he'd get my vote is if he's the only other option besides our Great Leader. 'Course, if he won I would pop a Bud and enjoy the craziness that would be a Paul administration. Just think: Republican Congress and moonbat President. They'd be so busy tearing into each other that NOTHING would get done in DC! That would be a good thing.

Oh and to the OT, writing a recommendation for a coworker and vice versa is NOT the same as being someone's campaign manager then going over to support her opponent less than a week before the seminal primary. IOW, timed for maximum negative publicity. One is backscratching; the other is whoring.

[Broomstick]

Well, it is hardly possible to get a worse record than Obama on civil liberties....

Where is Thanas and what have you done to him?

Seriously, while Obama's record on civil liberties is nothing to praise a statement like that coming from you is shocking. You know better.

[Thanas]

Well, it is hardly possible to get a worse record than Obama on civil liberties....

Uganda, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, all of fucking Africa really. We also don't jail people for teaching their dogs to Heil Hitler. I know it's damning with faint praise, but your statement was just outright idiotic.

Within the confines of the American democracy, which apparently was too hard of a context to grasp for you and the other illiterate goblins like Bwaaaamstick and Rouge. I know it must be hard for all of you to grasp that, given this is a thread of American presidential candidates and the potential damage they might cause to Americans and the world.

[Broomstick]

Nice backpedal - which is really what it is. Just admit you overstepped, m'kay?

[Thanas]

Nice backpedal - which is really what it is. Just admit you overstepped, m'kay?

How about you start thinking for once and read posts within the context of the thread? Given I already post plenty on those other "bad place sucks" threads here, you might be able to even put away your myopic shades of stupidity and realize that no, I did not forget the places who I posted about on the very same day.

[Broomstick]

What you said was

Well, it is hardly possible to get a worse record than Obama on civil liberties....

Right, uh-huh - even in the context of US he's hardly the worst. For example, he hasn't rounded up US citizens of a particular ethnic group and put them in internment camps without due process or trial. That's just one.

I realize Obama was a vast disappointment to you - you're hardly the only one in that category - but to state it's "hardly possible" to do worse than Obama shows a rather shocking ignorance (or lack of consciousness) on YOUR part. Which is why it's so damn surprising. There is much, much worse than Obama in the US political landscape. That's not to say either he or his record is OK, just that yes, things could be a lot worse for either the US or the world or both if some of the current Republitard herd get into office.

[Flagg]

Well, it is hardly possible to get a worse record than Obama on civil liberties....

Uganda, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, all of fucking Africa really. We also don't jail people for teaching their dogs to Heil Hitler. I know it's damning with faint praise, but your statement was just outright idiotic.

Within the confines of the American democracy, which apparently was too hard of a context to grasp for you and the other illiterate goblins like Bwaaaamstick and Rouge. I know it must be hard for all of you to grasp that, given this is a thread of American presidential candidates and the potential damage they might cause to Americans and the world.

Not what you said, but that clarifies things enough for me.

[Thanas]

What you said was

Well, it is hardly possible to get a worse record than Obama on civil liberties....

Right, uh-huh - even in the context of US he's hardly the worst. For example, he hasn't rounded up US citizens of a particular ethnic group and put them in internment camps without due process or trial. That's just one.

No, he just claimed the right to sign kill orders on US citizens. To me, that is a bit higher on the ladder than what FDR did. Also note that FDR allowed the courts to check his orders whereas Obama has stymied everything of the sort with the state secret doctrine. Obama has also ordered or was complicit in the torture of American citizens, something which FDR did not. And FDR was also facing far more serious and dangerous enemies than Obama has.

Detention with judicial review (flawed though it was) is still better than "killed on secret evidence".

As far as I can see, no Republican candidate has advocated anything beyond "killed on secret evidence/President's whim". In fact, at least one of them (Ron Paul) has opposed it vigorously.

[Rogue 9]

Roosevelt is not the worst of the lot, not by a long shot. Andrew Jackson also rounded up people of a particular ethnic group for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, not state security, and they were neither treated as well as the occupants of the World War II era internment camps nor released afterwards. Woodrow Wilson jailed anti-war protesters en masse on security grounds without trial. It is quite easy to find worse in past American presidents, and it is not inconceivable that worse could happen again. This isn't to say I like him (I don't), but to call him the worst possible is an ignorant statement even in the context of the American political system.

[bobalot]

Here is another position held by the sainted Ron Paul that should repulse most progressives.

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.

Source

[JME2]

Here is another position held by the sainted Ron Paul that should repulse most progressives.

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.

Source

...

You know, stuff like this shouldn't surprise me anymore, but again I wonder just what the fuck is wrong with these people.

[Simon_Jester]

I think part of it, and this is largely speculative, is that most politicians have forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be at someone's mercy. Or to have to really worry about what will happen if one quits a job. Politicians can walk away from their job whenever they like, hand it off to a subordinate, and lobby or go on speaking tours or ghost-write books. They are reasonably sure of a middle-class income on their own terms, and if anything the public perception of them will probably improve now that they aren't embroiled in scandals.

They are also mostly old, often old enough that their formative experiences of education and the workplace came at a time totally different from the present. Ron Paul probably got his idea about how office politics were supposed to work in the 1950s, when a woman in the office was probably a secretary, and if she didn't like her employer's wandering hands she could quit and find a new job in short order- or catch a man 'like she ought to' and not have to worry about income anymore, in theory. While if he was questioned about this point blank and forced to examine his assumptions he might realize something was wrong with the picture, he is very likely to think in those terms if he is speaking and thinking carelessly.

So combine a failure to understand what it is like to be vulnerable and powerless with strange and archaic views of what people 'ought to do.' You get people who are completely out of touch with the working environment, and that's where cracks and foolishness like this come from.

[bobalot]

I think it's general lack of experience. There are plenty of clueless college kids with little life experience who hold this view. They pretty much make up Ron Paul's base.

[Simon_Jester]

Ron Paul himself, though, cannot be accused of not having life experience. I think it's more that he's out of touch.