"Oh hey gurrrrl, ever been with a deplorable before?... WAIT WHERE ARE YOU GOING?!"Buy one anyway!
It's a conversation starter.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Oh hey gurrrrl, ever been with a deplorable before?... WAIT WHERE ARE YOU GOING?!"Buy one anyway!
It's a conversation starter.
Yeah it's pretty terrible that they forced her into conditions were she tried to kill herself multiple times.
Fix your pronouns and be respectful. Her identity is not a mental illness.
Motivation. Whistleblowing about important issues and partisan politicking are not equivalent in my opinion. I did feel that what Manning did was inappropriate, considering the reckless way she did it, but I also support shortening the sentence, which was rather out of proportion.But, but, but the majority of those here have been against Wikileaks releasing the DNC and Podesta emails. What is the difference between the two?
No treason is considerably more heinous than releasing emails that showed the true nature of a political machine.Motivation. Whistleblowing about important issues and partisan politicking are not equivalent in my opinion. I did feel that what Manning did was inappropriate, considering the reckless way she did it, but I also support shortening the sentence, which was rather out of proportion.
I note that no one has, or will be, charged as a criminal for hacking the DNC emails. Let alone given a life sentence in prison.
Given it is a medically accepted practice, considered to be of great benefit for the patient, I hope we do end up having to cover it.At least we can hope that the taxpayers will not have to pay for his operation.
Under what plan would that be paid for?Given it is a medically accepted practice, considered to be of great benefit for the patient, I hope we do end up having to cover it.
Some insurance plans do cover it, but given the evidence it should be covered by all insurance companies.Under what plan would that be paid for?
But the taxpayers will not have to cover the entire bill.Some insurance plans do cover it, but given the evidence it should be covered by all insurance companies.
Good. He should also pardon Snowden.The Obama has commuted the remaining sentence of Manning. The person who was convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.
above partially from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html
Now with all of the uproar over the Russian's hacking a private organization the Obama seems to think that what the Manning did wasn't really bad. Does the Obama really have the US intelligence agency back? Doesn't appear so now does it.
So I have a question.Good. He should also pardon Snowden.
I don't have any issue with the emails. I disliked Hillary a lot. The only good thing to come out of the election was that she lost. I mean on the flip side it means Trump won which is also a huge negative. The whole meteor just ending life on earth thing didn't pan out so I guess we are stuck with this for now.So I have a question.
Why is it that there are those that think Manning and Snowden did a great service in some instances placing people in harms way to the point of a direct threat to their lives, yet have an issue with someone revealing emails about the inner workings of a political organization?
Ya, Obama approved of the hack and gave them the go-ahead to release the informationOh, you mean like his approval of the released emails of the DNC and John Podesta.
Indirectly the Obama did give blanket approval to the idea of releasing information illegal obtained as not a big thing by commuting Manning's sentence. You do realize that the government wanted to charge him with Article 104 of the UCMJ which is equivalent to a civilian charge of treason. Now the same administration has commuted his sentence. What does that message say to anyone, civilian or military who is considering doing the same thing as Manning.Ya, Obama approved of the hack and gave them the go-ahead to release the information
I responded to this question, above. What I don't understand is why you think they are the same thing in the first place.So I have a question.
Why is it that there are those that think Manning and Snowden did a great service in some instances placing people in harms way to the point of a direct threat to their lives, yet have an issue with someone revealing emails about the inner workings of a political organization?
very simple to answer.I responded to this question, above. What I don't understand is why you think they are the same thing in the first place.
Transgenderism/transsexualism isn't an identity disorder, just so you know. That language was removed from the DSM because it's faulty and misleading.Also his identity is a mental illness like any other identity disorder.
That's true. And as I stated, I quite agree that hacking should be illegal. It's the nearly life sentence I have a problem with. Manning already spent more time in jail than anyone ever has for committing a similar crime, whereas no one has or will ever be sentenced for the Podesta leak. So claiming legal precedent is a little weird here. It's also different in that whistleblowing, again according to legal precedent, has long been considered a special category under the law with certain, albeit inconsistently applied, protections. I know of no such precedents for clemency in matters of attempted political sabotage.very simple to answer.
Were not the actions of Snowden, Manning, and those that hacked into the emails and provided them to Wikileaks done so illegally? If so then legally they all fall within the same area of legality.
Gender reassignment surgery is "elective" in the same sense that breast reconstruction surgery after a mastectomy is "elective".But the taxpayers will not have to cover the entire bill.
However, I do not see a sex change operation as necessary surgery but elective surgery and the taxpayers shouldn't have to cover elective surgery. At least the VA or the military will not have to pay for it
Who did Manning put in harm's way?So I have a question.
Why is it that there are those that think Manning and Snowden did a great service in some instances placing people in harms way to the point of a direct threat to their lives, yet have an issue with someone revealing emails about the inner workings of a political organization?