ljkeane Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said: You don't have to believe in it. All you need is the basic human decency and politeness to address people the way they asked to be addressed as. I don't think a lot of people think Manning deserves politeness, which is fair enough people aren't obliged to be polite. The important thing is it's hurtful to a lot of other people who haven't done anything wrong and it's not exactly a huge imposition so why not do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Commodore, With Tempra's point will you acknowledge that this being a commutation and not a pardon is quite significant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 21 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Tempra clearly doesn't either, but that's besides the point. They shouldn't be given reign to be terrible just because they have dumb beliefs. That's why I commented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 17 minutes ago, ljkeane said: I don't think a lot of people think Manning deserves politeness, which is fair enough people aren't obliged to be polite. The important thing is it's hurtful to a lot of other people who haven't done anything wrong and it's not exactly a huge imposition so why not do it? Which is why I didn't mention Manning specifically even once in that point. We have enough trans posters in these threads that we don't need to be inhospitable to them just to spite somebody who'll never frequent this forum anyway. I acknowledge I wasn't clear enough that that politeness included more people than just Manning herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 17, 2017 Author Share Posted January 17, 2017 Quote I don't think a lot of people think Manning deserves politeness, which is fair enough people aren't obliged to be polite. The important thing is it's hurtful to a lot of other people who haven't done anything wrong and it's not exactly a huge imposition so why not do it? Well, in theory you could lose cowboy macho points. This is America after all, amigos. I'd have to disagree with Putin. The best whores are in Washington DC. Like this one. Democrats seek Tom Price hearing delay over ethics charges http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/tom-price-health-human-services-hearing-ethics-233723 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 31 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Commodore, With Tempra's point will you acknowledge that this being a commutation and not a pardon is quite significant? @Commodore aside, I think it is perfectly rational to think that Ms. Manning should serve more of her sentence (rather than having it commuted) and to be unhappy with the decision to commute it. I certainly feel that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: Don't know if you had a chance to read the whole story, but Trump peddled Trump Vodka very successfully in Russia, until 2009, when sales dropped off and the brand stopped selling. The fact that this happened after Obama came to power makes me wonder if this was yet another thing Trump blamed Obama for... I'm out of free NYT articles, so I haven't (I pay for the WaPo and the Journal). But nonetheless, the fact that he was selling the Vodka there suggests that he had very good reasons for registering that trademark and all related trademarks. That seems perfectly normal and sensible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said: Wuuuut? Being happy that Ms. Manning is receiving a commuted sentence has little to do with one's feelings on wikileaks. That would be like saying that one's feelings about heroin addiction changes just because one is happy that a low-level drug offenders had their convictions pardoned. I'm nearly as far left as most of the left leaning Americans here, but I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. That Chelsea Manning got a harsher sentence than anyone else for leaking information is something I'm willing to agree to, but she has only served 3.5 years. I know a lot of people think of her as a whistle blower, but the military actually has channels to LEGALLY expose the information she came across. She was 100% wrong to give it to wikileaks. I was an Army intelligence agent, and while it might cloud my opinion some, it also means I know a more about the proper channels to handle this type of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: I'm out of free NYT articles, so I haven't (I pay for the WaPo and the Journal). But nonetheless, the fact that he was selling the Vodka there suggests that he had very good reasons for registering that trademark and all related trademarks. That seems perfectly normal and sensible to me. Sure it's sensible to register trademark for a product one wants to sell. What's far from sensible is reflexively lying about having done business in Russia when it's so easily demonstrated that Trump did in fact sell his vodka there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Commodore said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: @Commodore aside, I think it is perfectly rational to think that Ms. Manning should serve more of her sentence (rather than having it commuted) and to be unhappy with the decision to commute it. I certainly feel that way. as do I. If she had served at least 10 years, I'd feel better about the commutation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: I'm out of free NYT articles, so I haven't (I pay for the WaPo and the Journal). But nonetheless, the fact that he was selling the Vodka there suggests that he had very good reasons for registering that trademark and all related trademarks. That seems perfectly normal and sensible to me. Lol, we seem to be going around in circles here. The point is, he had big plans for Russia beyond vodka, and the article quotes him at a conference bragging about all the contacts he'd made among generals and the rich and famous and 'other people' in Moscow, yet he keeps insisting he was avoiding doing business in Russia. He has an extraordinarily selective memory, even when talking about matters that are very easy to fact check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 Quote @Commodore aside, I think it is perfectly rational to think that Ms. Manning should serve more of her sentence (rather than having it commuted) and to be unhappy with the decision to commute it. I certainly feel that way. Even though she is being forced to serve in a male prison? It seems to be cruel and unusual punishment to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: I'm nearly as far left as most of the left leaning Americans here, but I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. That Chelsea Manning got a harsher sentence than anyone else for leaking information is something I'm willing to agree to, but she has only served 3.5 years. I know a lot of people think of her as a whistle blower, but the military actually has channels to LEGALLY expose the information she came across. She was 100% wrong to give it to wikileaks. I was an Army intelligence agent, and while it might cloud my opinion some, it also means I know a more about the proper channels to handle this type of information. We can both easily claim higher knowledge of how these types of things are supposed to be handled, but my own background certainly doesn't change my opinion. I don't think that just because there are 'proper' channels that those channels should always be used. Proper channels can fail people all the time. The Obama administration has been unusually harsh on whistleblowers. It's not a climate I'm willing to support. There are many jailed whistleblowers that deserve to be advocated for. Ms. Manning's sentence was particularly harsh regardless if it was a short number of years. She spent that time entirely in a men's prison and much of it in solitary confinement. I don't support the notion that justice should completely break a person. There's no justice being served at that point. But I'm not sure how my analogy falters. My support of the commuted sentence has nothing to do with how I feel about wikileaks. I assume your support of a shortened sentence wouldn't change your opinion about wikileaks. I mean, half the reason I cheered for joy is because wikileaks says Assange will basically turn himself over (we know that's not going to happen but whatever). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said: We can both easily claim higher knowledge of how these types of things are supposed to be handled, but my own background certainly doesn't change my opinion. I don't think that just because there are 'proper' channels that those channels should always be used. Proper channels can fail people all the time. The Obama administration has been unusually harsh on whistleblowers. It's not a climate I'm willing to support. There are many jailed whistleblowers that deserve to be advocated for. Ms. Manning's sentence was particularly harsh regardless if it was a short number of years. She spent that time entirely in a men's prison and much of it in solitary confinement. I don't support the notion that justice should completely break a person. There's no justice being served at that point. But I'm not sure how my analogy falters. My support of the commuted sentence has nothing to do with how I feel about wikileaks. I assume your support of a shortened sentence wouldn't change your opinion about wikileaks. The analogy fails because she wasn't a low level dealer, she was a major dealer. I totally agree she should not be in the men's prison. My feelings on it have nothing to do with wikileaks. I said I felt 35 years was too long of a sentence, but I also think 3.5 yrs is too short. There are ways to be a whistleblower without breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Even though she is being forced to serve in a male prison? It seems to be cruel and unusual punishment to me. She should have been moved to the women's prison, no doubt about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Just now, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: The analogy fails because she wasn't a low level dealer, she was a major dealer. I totally agree she should not be in the men's prison. My feelings on it have nothing to do with wikileaks. I said I felt 35 years was too long of a sentence, but I also think 3.5 yrs is too short. There are ways to be a whistleblower without breaking the law. Ok, so the analogy was sloppy. I have a feeling you probably understand what I mean- That X action doesn't somehow alter my feelings on Y thing. That's the point the other poster tried to sell, that if one is happy about Ms. Mannings shortened sentence then one must approve of the actions of wikileaks. We also obviously have different feelings about whether or not there are times that the law should be broken for the greater good, but that can be saved for another thread if you desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 29 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: @Commodore aside, I think it is perfectly rational to think that Ms. Manning should serve more of her sentence (rather than having it commuted) and to be unhappy with the decision to commute it. I certainly feel that way. Zabzie, That's fair. Claiming there is no difference between a Pardon and a Commutation is not. That is my point of disagreement with Commodore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 oh, I do think there are times when you have to break the law for the greater good. After you have tried to work within the law without results. (ok, I don't recall if this was attempted first, if it was, then I take back what I said) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 18 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: as do I. If she had served at least 10 years, I'd feel better about the commutation. 8 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: The analogy fails because she wasn't a low level dealer, she was a major dealer. I totally agree she should not be in the men's prison. My feelings on it have nothing to do with wikileaks. I said I felt 35 years was too long of a sentence, but I also think 3.5 yrs is too short. There are ways to be a whistleblower without breaking the law. I guess it depends on your point of view. She was arrested in May of 2010, was kept in solitary confinement for 9 months and then transferred to Fort Leavenworth, and convicted in July of 2013. That means she has been imprisoned for 6.5 years. Don't you credit time served in the US? Here in Canada we give double credit for imprisonment before conviction, so that makes 9.5 years. Do you not do that in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.