US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

by Peony at Jan 19, 2017
(279 Views / 2 Thanks)
14 Comments
President Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning, who leaked top secret documents to WikiLeaks, compromising US military and diplomatic activities. Manning was sentenced to 35 years for his crime. Manning has served about seven years of that sentence.

In response to objections that this pardon suggests a precedent for forgiving traitors, Obama said, “first of all, let’s be clear: Chelsea Manning has served a tough prison sentence, so the notion that the average person who was thinking about disclosing vital classified information would think that it goes unpunished, I don’t think would get that impression from the sentence that Chelsea Manning has served.”

Obama: ‘Chelsea Manning Has Served a Tough Prison Sentence’

You see, Manning has suffered enough. Sure, he leaked confidential army documents, but he acknowledged his wrong doing and he’s gender confused. Being in prison is hard. He’s a sensitive gal. Sure he was convicted of traitorous activity, but give her a break. That is the message Barack Obama is sending.

“It has been my view that given she went to trial, that due process was carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the sentence she received was very disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received, and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made sense to commute – and not pardon – her sentence,” Obama said.

There you have it. Manning committed a crime, but hey, others have too, and they didn’t get sentenced to 35 years. So Manning has suffered enough. Prison bathrooms are a hot bed of trouble under any circumstances. Just imagine how difficult Manning found serving his sentence when he announced he is she. So being not your average traitor, Manning is excused....
by Peony at Jan 16, 2017
(1,057 Views / 1 Thanks)
77 Comments
On Friday, Donald Trump will be sworn in as 45th president of the United States. So far, over twenty House democrats, led by John Lewis, have announced that they will not attend the ceremony. Trump is not their president! He is a misogynist, hypocritical, racist, nationalist, rude poo-poo head. Not only that! The Russians and Comey and the alt right and the Electoral College cheated Hillary out of POTUS. Someone must be held accountable!

Trump is not legitimate, says Lewis et al. You have to wonder why they were silent during Hillary’s illegitimate victory over Bernie Sanders. It’s almost as though the rules are not quite the same for those with a D after their names as they are for those with an R after their names. When Hillary was being investigated, it was a “witch hunt”. When it comes to Trump, the investigations must go on and on and on.

In short, these elected representatives are mad, so like little children who didn’t get their way, they are going to skip the swearing in ceremony, even though attending is arguably part of their job.

Interestingly, many of the same elected representatives who sat cross legged on the House floor last summer, unhappy because more laws weren’t passed in response to gun violence, are among the cry babies who intend to blow off the inauguration of Donald Trump. What an unseemly pattern.

These House democrats have made it clear that it is more important to let the entire world know they don’t like Donald Trump than to stand together as Americans while the new Commander-in-Chief is sworn in.

Here is a list of the House democrats who have promised to boycott Friday’s ceremony. These Democrats aren't attending Trump's inauguration - CNNPolitics.com

John Lewis and some like-minded democrats intend to spit sour grapes in the eye of every American who doesn’t agree with them but still pays their salary....
by Peony at Jan 11, 2017
(840 Views / 0 Thanks)
53 Comments
http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIF.K5nLNDVzolLlej%2b7XO3HLQ&w=310&h=173&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=4&dpr=1.25&pid=1.1
There are the many many paintings hanging on the wall of the long tunnel that runs between the US Capital building and the House offices. One of them has gotten quite a bit of attention lately. Indeed, the painting has been taken off the wall and hung back on the wall at least three times since yesterday.

So annoyed about it, “ Louisiana Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, threatened the Republicans who have been taking the painting down: “We may just have to kick somebody’s ass and stop them.”[…]

Never mind that kicking ass over a painting depicting violence is sadly ironic. Let’s talk about art and free speech and this painting. The painting, which won first prize in a high school art contest, contains many images: a dove, a crow, a Beauty Shop, a peace sign, the St Louis arch, to name a few. There is a lot of symbolism to consider in this painting.

The images that stand out to the people complaining about the painting are the police officers with pig heads. Not subtle. No wonder it grabs the eye. What also grabs the eye in this painting is a figure, a black man holding scales and wearing a graduation cap, suggestive of Mike Brown, hanging like Christ on a cross.

The painting has apparently been hanging on the tunnel wall for some six months. Why no one has noticed it and complained till now is unclear. What is clear is that we need to talk about art and free speech- again. People are offended because depicting police officers with pig heads is disrespectful to police officers. Is that a good enough reason to take the painting down? Surely there are other paintings on that wall full of paintings that disrespect somebody or something else too. Suppose there was a picture depicting cops with halos and Mike Brown with devil horns, that would be pretty offensive, wouldn’t it? Would there be demands to take that one down? Or would free speech in art prevail?

Even if it infuriates some people it is...
by Peony at Dec 31, 2016
(642 Views / 0 Thanks)
19 Comments
Honolulu Mom and Pop fancy greasy spoon specializing in Italian food, Café 8½ recently put up a handwritten message on the front door. It read, “if you voted for Trump you cannot eat here! No Nazis."

A business ought to be able to choose who they serve, right? If a business wants only a certain clientele, that’s up to them. It’s OK if they only serve rich white men or only skinny middle aged women or only people who smell nice, right? Besides, Café 8.5 assures us that they aren’t grilling people at the door over this, if a Trump voter should order a meal, they won’t spit in his salad or anything.

Why put up such a sign at all?

Discouraging people who believe differently than you from visiting your place of business can’t be wrong, can it? You are a proud liberal running a restaurant. It’s perfectly reasonable that you don’t want any nasty right wingers ruining the nice left wingers’ dining experience. Keep the undesirables out. Call them Nazis! They’ll take their business elsewhere. It’s a win/win! (If anyone complains, you can always tell them you were just kidding.)

It happens all the time. It must be perfectly fine (legal even?!) for a business to turn away customers. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. That’s OK, right? It’s a public health issue. We can’t have bare skin touching various surfaces. People without shoes don’t have much money to spend anyway. Surely this is an example of sound business practice trumping the cold heartedness of leaving poor scantily clad homeless people outside of your store.

No More than Two Teenagers in the Store at a Time. That’s OK, right? It discourages hoodlum flash mobs. It’s not like teenagers are being targeted or anything. It’s not like, say, ordering black people to sit in the back of the building. That’s not OK. That is discriminating against someone based on their skin color. There are laws against that.

How about a baker turning down a request to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?...
by John Baron at Dec 27, 2016
(927 Views / 1 Thanks)
31 Comments
In 1995, the brilliant novelist, and semiotician Umberto Eco wrote "There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People." Discussing fascism, specifically Ur-Fascism, Eco wrote "Mussolini did not have any philosophy: he had only rhetoric." Followers of Trump have claimed to be representing the people, and no one has accused the President-elect of having any of that philosophy stuff. But he scores well on the rhetoric count. Why I wouldn't be surprised to find a Trump supporter paraphrasing GoeringWhen I hear talk of philosophy coming from the establishment or media, I reach for my gun

Contrary to fringe nonsense, neither Presidents Bush or Obama were dictators nor tyrants, and I do not expect the President-elect to become one. I do however, believe the President-elect to be a pushing a populist, fascisti message that appeals to those that considers themselves to be representative of the so-called middle class. This segment of the American electorate feels left out and invisible, left behind and abandoned; and it is angry and frustrated, and during the 2016 campaign, it was often "vicious and violent."

In a Letter to the Editor found online, a reader wrote of President-elect Trump "He has accomplished more before he is sworn in than any president-elect in recent memory." Maybe this reader watches FOX New's Bill O'Reilly, who has declared the the War on Christmas to be over? And not to worry, Mr. O'Reilly has also informed the people, that the President-elect is on the case of...