Backlash After Manning Nixed by Pride...

Backlash After Manning Nixed by Pride Board

There are 35 comments on the EDGE story from May 6, 2013, titled Backlash After Manning Nixed by Pride Board. In it, EDGE reports that:

With an image of Army Private First Class Bradley Manning behind him, famed Pentagon papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg spoke in support of Manning being named a grand marshal of the San Francisco Pride Parade The board that oversees the San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade is facing a backlash from community members after it rescinded a community grand ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#1 May 6, 2013
"Manning’s selection seems to have divided gay military veterans. Some, including Zoe Dunning and Keith Meinhold, both former parade grand marshals, took to Facebook late last week, denouncing the Pride board for selecting Manning. Dunning said she was "furious" at the selection, and she and Meinhold both pointed out that Manning had taken an oath when he signed up for the military.

"Right or wrong there are consequences for that," Meinhold posted.

Dunning and Meinhold are, of course, completely correct. A PFC is not authorized to so egregiously break/flaunt the law simply because he finds it inconvenient. Nor should his orientation be any kind of excuse.

And Ellsberg is a joke and indeed, a traitor regardless of who made the proper identification, i.e., Nixon and Agnew. Those who so vocally want Manning as a Grand Marshall do the gay community no favor. Of course straight "progressives" are equally offensive. If that's the kind of "equality" you want, be prepared for the backlash. Some might not-unreasonably suggest that if gays are so absurd and bereft of integrity as to waste their political capital on one such as Manning simply because he's gay, other support of the gay community is also suspect and deserving of ridicule.

A better choice for grand Marshall would be Jason Collins, Meredith Baxter, Neil Patrick Harris... or damn near anybody else.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#2 May 6, 2013
Making manning a grand marshall would not be representing pride only shame. going down in history as the san Francisco gay shame parade the protesters are a disgrace to LGBT veterans

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#3 May 6, 2013
What Ellsburg and Manning have done might have been and may be still technically illegal.

However, what ticked off the government was not their act so much as the truth the act revealed.

It revealed then with Ellsburg and again now with Manning that our government is not sacrosanct. Our officials and functionaries lie to both foreign governments and to us, the American people on a regular basis.

No liar likes to be called out. THAT is what annoys the government.

BS here says "straight progressives are equally offensive". I think BS that, to you, ANY progressive is offensive. Well we progressives do tend to progress - to move things forward. If you want to stay stuck in the past that's great - the rest of us will progress without you.

There is little doubt that Private Manning's treatment is less to do with his action than it is to do with his sexuality. Had he been straight I (and many others) suspect his treatment would be far less harsh. Calling attention to his plight by having him serve as the grand marshal in absentia is a perfectly legitimate tool to call attention to his situation.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#4 May 6, 2013
KirkW wrote:
What Ellsburg and Manning have done might have been and may be still technically illegal.
However, what ticked off the government was not their act so much as the truth the act revealed.
It revealed then with Ellsburg and again now with Manning that our government is not sacrosanct. Our officials and functionaries lie to both foreign governments and to us, the American people on a regular basis.
No liar likes to be called out. THAT is what annoys the government.
BS here says "straight progressives are equally offensive". I think BS that, to you, ANY progressive is offensive. Well we progressives do tend to progress - to move things forward. If you want to stay stuck in the past that's great - the rest of us will progress without you.
There is little doubt that Private Manning's treatment is less to do with his action than it is to do with his sexuality. Had he been straight I (and many others) suspect his treatment would be far less harsh. Calling attention to his plight by having him serve as the grand marshal in absentia is a perfectly legitimate tool to call attention to his situation.
what he did was tried to leak CLASSIFIED documents 700 pages worth weather the government was lying or not is irrelevant the documents he sent to wikileaks was not his to send. If he found something and or someone was doing wrong he should have taken it through the proper channels.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5 May 6, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
.........
A better choice for grand Marshall would be Jason Collins, Meredith Baxter, Neil Patrick Harris... or damn near anybody else.
Agreed!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 May 6, 2013
Ellsberg doesn't know that the SF PRIDE "employee" was probably a mole in the fine old tradition of CoIntelpro, and that HE is being a reactionary puppet.

Somebody near him needs to grab him hard by the ear, take him aside, sit him down and explain some things to him.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#7 May 6, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
what he did was tried to leak CLASSIFIED documents 700 pages worth weather the government was lying or not is irrelevant the documents he sent to wikileaks was not his to send. If he found something and or someone was doing wrong he should have taken it through the proper channels.
You obviously have no idea what whistleblowing is, or what right and wrong are.
The Mad Man

Riverside, CA

#8 May 6, 2013
Obviously WHO or WHAT you sleep with is the reality of today. I understand the lifestyle. I have no comments about that. I just don't subscribe to ANNOUNCING to the world WHO or What I sleep with, so leave my sheep alone. They are happy and so am I...ooops I said too much already.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#9 May 6, 2013
The little twerp should be hanged.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#10 May 6, 2013
KirkW wrote:
What Ellsburg and Manning have done might have been and may be still technically illegal. However, what ticked off the government was not their act so much as the truth the act revealed.[/QUOTER]

Technically? Are you joking? By your reasoning, the oath that Manning took was just a joke that could be compromised at whim. He put lives at risk. American lives. Maybe that doesn't mean much to you, but having worn the uniform, it means a helluva lot to me and a whole lot of others who did as well.

Where the government erred was in giving Manning a security clearance he was not qualified to have. Does our government lie at times? Of course! What you don't get, even assuming you good intentions, is that the bad guys don't play by the rules. They are not civilized and they laugh at people like you who think they ever would. They kill and maim people at whim because of their warped fanaticism to a religion that is as insane as they are.
[QUOTE who="KirkW"]
BS here says "straight progressives are equally offensive". I think BS that, to you, ANY progressive is offensive.
You think wrong. But that's what you get for your prejudice, i.e., pre-judging... and not having any idea what you're talking about.
KirkW wrote:

Well we progressives do tend to progress - to move things forward. If you want to stay stuck in the past that's great - the rest of us will progress without you.
You simply declare that you "progress" and that everybody else, therefore, regresses. Cute, but stupid and dishonest. But by your reasoning, if I arbitrarily called myself a patriot and declare you to be a traitor, does that make it so? Not necessarily. And your sanctimonious declaration that those who do not espouse your perspective will be "left in the past" is equally stupid and offensive. But that's what people like you do. They make stupid and empty declarations trying to sound profound and superiot, regardless of what happens in the real world.

Much like the extreme right wingers and fundies. No difference between you and Limbaugh.
KirkW wrote:

There is little doubt that Private Manning's treatment is less to do with his action than it is to do with his sexuality. Had he been straight I (and many others) suspect his treatment would be far less harsh. Calling attention to his plight by having him serve as the grand marshal in absentia is a perfectly legitimate tool to call attention to his situation.
Again, by your reasoning, there is little doubt that you are unconcerned with the reality of what Manning has admitted to doing,(to wit: breaking the law), and more with his orientation. By naming him Grand Marshall "in absentia" trivializes both his admitted crimes and the people he put at risk, but also calls into question the judgement of people like you in favor of raising the straw man argument that it's really just about his being gay. Playing that card might, to some on the other side as myopic as yourself, cause some to question whether gays should be taken seriously about issues any more complicated than sequins.

But hey. If you want to be like the flip side of Limbaugh, that's your choice. In this great country, the First Amendment applies equally to both of you and protects both your rights to look ridiculous.

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#11 May 6, 2013
BS I don't know how to respond to your diatribe - you seem to have ignored the basis of everything I said.

Whistle blowers, by definition, break SOMEBODY'S rules. If a worker for a company does it they are certainly breaking the companies rules. If a government employee does it they certainly are breaking a rule and perhaps a law.

What Manning and Ellsberg did not put the country at risk. They revealed the truth about events in the past. They put the government at risk of embarrassment. Too Bad!

A little humility never hurt anyone. And frankly, we could use a little humility as a country.

I don't think that because you are not progressive you are regressing. I think you are standing still. Have fun with that. The rest of us are evolving and moving ahead.

No doubt we'll make some mistakes along the way like those forward thinkers before us have. But that doesn't mean you stop.

I acknowledge that some things a government needs to keep secret. However, that should be the exception...NOT the rule.

I agree that what Manning did was illegal under the laws of the U.S. and under the UCMJ. Whether or not it was immoral or unethical is another question altogether. Sometimes there IS a greater good.

But I still contend, as do many others, that his treatment, as reported to us by his lawyer and acknowledged by military officials, is far more degrading that it would have been had he been heterosexual. And that deserves to have some light shined on it as well. That is what I believe the parade organizers were trying to do - and I think there's some validity to their action.

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#12 May 6, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
what he did was tried to leak CLASSIFIED documents 700 pages worth weather the government was lying or not is irrelevant the documents he sent to wikileaks was not his to send. If he found something and or someone was doing wrong he should have taken it through the proper channels.
He didn't try - he succeeded and he embarrassed the government. So what?

As a country for many years we got way too big for our britches. We could use a little humility.

And one other point, I am ex-military - you clearly don't understand the military if you think his finding something embarrassing to them and taking it to the proper authorities would EVER have resulted in a wrong being made right. You'd get told to keep your effen mouth shut if you were lucky.

I understand the point you are making but whistle blowing is always against SOMEBODY'S rules. Sometimes though illegal is not necessarily immoral or unethical. Ponder that.

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#13 May 6, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The little twerp should be hanged.
To quote Reagan...there you go again.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#14 May 6, 2013
KirkW wrote:
BS I don't know how to respond to your diatribe - you seem to have ignored the basis of everything I said.
Whistle blowers, by definition, break SOMEBODY'S rules. If a worker for a company does it they are certainly breaking the companies rules. If a government employee does it they certainly are breaking a rule and perhaps a law.
Perhaps a law? He did not break a company rule, he admittedly broke federal law. 700 times. If you can't understand that, rational discourse is a waste of time.
KirkW wrote:
What Manning and Ellsberg did not put the country at risk.
And you are certain of this... how"? They did not put put the survival of the entire country at peril of being destroyed, but they both compromised sensitive information thay had absolutely no right nor authority to do. By compromising such information, they put lives at risk. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but having served my country and having an understanding of classified information, it matters to me.,
KirkW wrote:
They revealed the truth about events in the past. They put the government at risk of embarrassment. Too Bad!
Ah, another America hater. But again, you are not privy to all of the information compromised and therefore you have no idea what you are talking about.
KirkW wrote:
A little humility never hurt anyone. And frankly, we could use a little humility as a country.
I think you could use some humility of your own (it "never hurt anyone'), and a whole lot less unwarranted arrogance and self righteousness on matters you know nothing about.
KirkW wrote:
I don't think that because you are not progressive you are regressing. I think you are standing still.
and this is based on what hard data? None? None at all? Fact is, you know precious little of that, and whom of which you speak. Because I don't proclaim how "progressive" I am, I must, in your dishonest and ignorant perspective, be standing still.
KirkW wrote:
Have fun with that. The rest of us are evolving and moving ahead.
No, you're just being self indulgent and self delusional. Have fun with that.
KirkW wrote:
No doubt we'll make some mistakes along the way...
Oh, gee. Ya think? How progressive of you to admit your not perfect.
KirkW wrote:
... like those forward thinkers before us have. But that doesn't mean you stop.
Ah yes. You are "forward thinking, so anybody who dares think differently but be backward thinking or "standing still." What offensive crap! Ah, but again, you have no idea what I think or do (except that I understand classified information better than you do). You just make up silly nonsense to support that you have absolutely no rational, reality argument.
KirkW wrote:
I acknowledge that some things a government needs to keep secret. However, that should be the exception...NOT the rule.
And yopu have any knowledge regarding the extent of how many and what kind of military information is classified?
KirkW wrote:
I agree that what Manning did was illegal under the laws of the U.S. and under the UCMJ.
End of story.
KirkW wrote:
Whether or not it was immoral or unethical is another question altogether.
No it isn't. It is completely irrelevant. A Pfc is not authorized nor in any position to determine the morality of the U.S. Government or the U.S. Military.
KirkW wrote:
Sometimes there IS a greater good.
But I still contend, as do many others, that his treatment, as reported to us by his lawyer and acknowledged by military officials, is far more degrading that it would have been had he been heterosexual. And that deserves to have some light shined on it as well. That is what I believe the parade organizers were trying to do - and I think there's some validity to their action.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#15 May 6, 2013
="KirkW"] Sometimes there IS a greater good.
Crap. And certainly not in this case.
KirkW wrote:
But I still contend, as do many others, that his treatment, as reported to us by his lawyer and acknowledged by military officials, is far more degrading that it would have been had he been heterosexual. And that deserves to have some light shined on it as well. That is what I believe the parade organizers were trying to do - and I think there's some validity to their action.
Contend all you want. Such is your right. Are you seriously suggesting that a gay pride parade is the appropriate forum to determine America's security policy? Especially by a bunch of fools who know, little, if anything about which they speak? And note it was parade organizers who wisely squelched the idea. But I digress.

Re his alleged treatment, the appropriate authority (you're not the appropriate authority) is looking into the claims. I personally don't much care what Manning has to say, and I sure as hell don't much care what his lawyer says. His job (the lawyer's) is to get the best he can for his client by whatever means that are legal. He will dance, maneuver, and make whatever argument he can, silly or otherwise, to get a better deal for his client.

My guess (as an outsider) is that a gay pride parade or event might better show the aforementioned gay pride (hence the name) and not get into things that are not relevant and that they know very little about (i.e., national security) unless they'd rather look foolish and relinquish/squander their credibility.

But if it is more important for you to look foolish, I invite you to, and absolutely defend your right to, exercise your First Amendment right to look foolish.

It's your community's cred at stake, not mine.
AzAdam

Madison Heights, VA

#16 May 6, 2013
SF Pride parades have a long history of getting off topic. That's why they are my least favorite. They won't change.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#17 May 6, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously have no idea what whistleblowing is, or what right and wrong are.
You obviously don't know what violating federal law is. It is generally considered *wrong*(not right) to willfully and flagrantly violate federal law, especially as pertains to national security and the safety of American military personnel. The twerp... I'm sorry, the *perp*... doesn't get a special pass because he's gay.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 May 6, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You think wrong. But that's what you get for your prejudice, i.e., pre-judging... and not having any idea what you're talking about.
<quoted text> You simply declare that you "progress" and that everybody else, therefore, regresses. Cute, but stupid and dishonest. But by your reasoning, if I arbitrarily called myself a patriot and declare you to be a traitor, does that make it so? Not necessarily. And your sanctimonious declaration that those who do not espouse your perspective will be "left in the past" is equally stupid and offensive. But that's what people like you do. They make stupid and empty declarations trying to sound profound and superiot, regardless of what happens in the real world.
Much like the extreme right wingers and fundies. No difference between you and Limbaugh.
<quoted text>
Again, by your reasoning, there is little doubt that you are unconcerned with the reality of what Manning has admitted to doing,(to wit: breaking the law), and more with his orientation. By naming him Grand Marshall "in absentia" trivializes both his admitted crimes and the people he put at risk, but also calls into question the judgement of people like you in favor of raising the straw man argument that it's really just about his being gay. Playing that card might, to some on the other side as myopic as yourself, cause some to question whether gays should be taken seriously about issues any more complicated than sequins.
But hey. If you want to be like the flip side of Limbaugh, that's your choice. In this great country, the First Amendment applies equally to both of you and protects both your rights to look ridiculous.
Wow. The zombie apocalypse MUST be imminent ... I agree with you.

(Keep your eyes peeled for giant walking marshmallows, everybody)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#19 May 6, 2013
Recently, I saw a program on tv (History Channel I think) about George Washington and The Revolutionary War, and they mentioned a story on the program about George Washington that I hadn't heard before.

For the Continental Army, living conditions were usually hard, and food, shelter, and pay for the soldiers was problematic at best, so desertions were unfortunately common.

A group of 6 men who deserted were found by Continental troops and brought before General Washington. To set an example, General Washington divided the men, who it was said were all friends of one another, into 2 groups.

General Washington then had the one group of deserters execute, by firing squad, the other group of deserters, their friends.

I hadn't heard that story about George Washington before.

If Manning isn't executed, I do not think that he should receive anything less than a life sentence in the stockade.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#20 May 6, 2013
Foxy, the topic isn't Manning himself, but the "backlash".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Prison Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Alarm bells went off': Expert used in Anthony ... 2 hr perfect 3
News Trump has not flipped-flopped on immigration 4 hr Maria 3
News 'El Chapo' could be headed back to prison he es... 8 hr DC Dave 4
News Sex offender charged in new sexual assault case 9 hr pinecone 2
News Assange: "Thousands" More Documents on Clinton ... 11 hr too much 1
News UNM connection to Suzie Chavez controversy 14 hr Joaquin 1
News New York grand jury charges man with murder of ... 21 hr ExChristian 4
More from around the web