It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama renames Mt McKinley.....Wait, what!??!?

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

edit on 8/31/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: thanks for the reminder, yuppa and alien. Sorry about that.




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Polite Mod Reminder and Request

Hi People,


Do appreciate that our discussions and debates can at times become quite passionate...but please let's also be mindful not to allow them to become poisonous.

Go at the topic - not eachother...and all that.


Thank you.




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
My problem with the President renaming our highest peak is on principle and procedural precedent.


Actually, the President didn't rename the mountain. The Secretary of the Interior did, with full powers to do so. Congress has been bringing contradictory bills for consideration since 1975. Since no action has been decided (within a reasonable time), the Secretary of the Interior has power to take action. And she did.



On March 11, 1975, Governor Jay S. Hammond of the State of Alaska, in furtherance of a resolution passed by the Alaska State Legislature, formally requested that the Secretary of the Interior direct the United States Board on Geographic Names (Board) to change the name of "Mount McKinley" to "Denali."
...
The requested name change is consistent with the Board's substantive policies and is supported by the State of Alaska. While the Board does have a policy of deferring action when a matter is being considered by Congress, contradictory bills on this issue have been proposed by various members of Congress since the late 1970s. Under 43 U.S.C. §§ 364-364f, the Secretary of the Interior may take action in matters "wherein the Board does not act within a reasonable time."


Source



Action may be taken by the Secretary in any matter wherein the Board does not act within a reasonable time.

Source

So, policy and procedure were followed fully.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is dumbfounding to me that you continue to argue that you did not ask me if I was a racist by asking if I was a member of the stormfront and/or aryan belief system...
And you are getting stars for it...it really is stupefying.

These are not organizations with spectrum agendas....for instance, not every democrat is a liberal...not every republican is a conservative...
Stormfront and Aryans , on the other hand, are monolithic in their dogma...
To assert you were doing anything other than calling me a racist for disagreeing with President Obamas actions is disingenuous at best.....vitriolic and small minded at worst.

-Christosterone
edit on 31-8-2015 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2015 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Funny how all through Obama's time in the White House a certain group of people have complained about states' rights. Now when he gives a state what they have been wanted for years he still gets slammed. I guess the guy just can't win. Besides, why are people making such a big deal over something that doesn't affect them in anyway? Oh that's right. Because Obama did it


THERE IT IS

Right there in plain words. All about state's rights this and state's rights that....so he allowed a state to do what they wished and BAM...this particular state's decision is wrong. Why? Because a republican didn't do it. Now, in 12 if Obama had lost and this same decision was made I bet you it would be lauded by conservatives everywhere as a grand expression and noble return to the rights of the state



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: KyoZero

Maybe this will help clarify my position...know that I only speak for myself and not for the conservative movement in general...

In the 19th century the American Civil War was fought and hard won by the United States of America(colloquially the North)...
Some states continue to identify with the defeated Confederate states of America(colloquially the South)

In Western societies you typically don't get to flaunt your failed regimes....
And generally the losing sides know this and will voluntarily remove vestiges of their failure...
Bavaria, for instance, didn't design a new flag with a small swastika in the corner after WWII.
They lost the war and when you lose you don't get to fly whatever loser flag you formerly identified with...unless the winners give you the ok(Japan and Non-swastika germany specifically)

Generally speaking you don't have to legislate against it. People inherently don't want to identify with the losing side.
Somehow parts of the American South are immune to this humility....so states like South Carolina must be cajoled into removing flags of this failed secession...

And I agree with it....but I don't agree with renaming mountains...

This is a tangential thought used to illustrate how I try to take things on a case-by-case basis.
There is no one-size-fits-all political belief system and it's very unfair to categorize entire groups of people without actually asking them their positions on issues.
edit on 31-8-2015 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

So since Alaska got incorporated into a state they should just let us name their mountains whatever we want?

Finders keepers losers weepers?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely think it is a non-issue and I can think of plenty of other descriptive names for politicians, what Blowhard isn't good enough though?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
a reply to: KyoZero

Maybe this will help clarify my position...know that I only speak for myself and not for the conservative movement in general...

In the 19th century the American Civil War was fought and hard won by the United States of America(colloquially the North)...
Some states continue to identify with the defeated Confederate states of America(colloquially the South)

In Western societies you typically don't get to flaunt your failed regimes....
And generally the losing sides know this and will voluntarily remove vestiges of their failure...
Bavaria, for instance, didn't design a new flag with a small swastika in the corner after WWII.
They lost the war and when you lose you don't get to fly whatever loser flag you formerly identified with...unless the winners give you the ok(Japan and Non-swastika germany specifically)

Generally speaking you don't have to legislate against it. People inherently don't want to identify with the losing side.
Somehow parts of the American South are immune to this humility....so states like South Carolina must be cajoled into removing flags of this failed secession...

And I agree with it....but I don't agree with renaming mountains...

This is a tangential thought used to illustrate how I try to take things on a case-by-case basis.
There is no one-size-fits-all political belief system and it's very unfair to categorize entire groups of people without actually asking them their positions on issues.


So then the state itself wanted to make the change....and this was a problem?

Why shouldn't I categorize? The conservatives categorize the liberals every single second of the day. But then when something doesn't go their way or when we point out that they have done something pretty stupid they run and cry about how it's an attack on tradition and family values and all that BS

I am quite capable and happy to use a case by case basis

and in this case I think it was a proper move. The people who generally support conservativism are the ones crying about this. And yet the people who generally support the conservative way of life cry and say they bleed in the fight to restore state's rights. In this case, that state wanted this and Obama recognized it. He gave the state their right to make this decision and now conservatives are crying because what....we gave a state a right to do something?

I am lost here....what do they want? State's rights or state's rights when it fits their agenda?

It's like the confed flag. The state made the choice to remove the flag from the state building....a state right to do so...and they flipped. Now I am well of the understanding that not every conservative acts in this manner and I am very very well of the understanding that their are some darn stupid liberals...

but yeesh what a weird thing to flip out about...Alaska wanted to revert the mountain..not rename (yes technically they renamed) but revert the name of a mountain back to its origins....the state has that right and they have done so. So no I am not particularly warm to the cry babies on the hill and fox about this. Besides....at no point in time was their some freaky rider attached to some hidden bill saying that if a citizen calls it McKinley it will be illegal. So call it McKinley...I don't care.

Just like the Sears Tower....it's been a monument of Chicago for ages now...but it was bought and now it is the Willis Tower. Doesn't change anything...to me it is still the Sears Tower....and if people here want to post say in some othr thread and call it McKinley...so be it

I'm just saying this is bizarre

to me it's nothing more than further proof that both sides...lib and cons will cry about any nitpicky bull crap

I may agree with the ACA...or it least what it tried to be...but ok cool. If conservatives cry foul on this I get that. Even I think it's messed up....we may not agree why it was messed up (i mean myself and conservatives...not you and I) but ok that's a pretty big deal. Or these ridiculously expensive wars...but to lose their poop over reverting a mountain to its historic name, supported and requested by the state....I dunno....I am lost

oh well



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I woke up today and thought it was going to be a great day, everything was perfect.
We even had good weather today, wasn't to hot, was cloudy.

Then I find out a freaking mountains name was changed. A mountain that was 1000's + miles away.
A mountain I never seen in person. In one on the youngest states. In our union of states. I raged.

I kicked the door. It splintered. I threw a fit in my home, my cat looked at me in fear.
I yelled "THE NAME WAS CHANGED! DENALI ! IT'S FREAKING DENALI ! We are not a union anymore!
the rebellious young state shall pay!"

My cat even got enraged at what was happening and ran down the hall and tackled his toy and tried gutting it.
Neighbors are yelling over to my place" You ok?"

"NO. The name got changed!" They in turn started yelling as well, we can't handle it anymore! We are gathering moneys and people up to do a 2 million ( because 2 is more then 1) person march around the White House and display our anger, our rage! How dare they change the name!

You know how many Vets fought in WWI and WWII and the "police actions that later had their names were changed to add war" Fought for that Mountain's freedom to keep it name!

I was so angry about this I wrote a thread on ATS but you know what because of my anger I forgot to hit post!
Thanks Obama, now someone else is gonna get those stars and flags!

---

on a side note I'm glad it was changed. I can't see making a big deal out of it ( cough )



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

I withdraw the questions. It was only a passing curiosity.

Please stop derailing your own topic with silliness directed at me.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Wooooow.


How is it an insult to Ohio!?

They have nothing to do with the damn mountain.

The sad part is people are going to eat that up.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

"Pres McKinley was a proud Ohioan, and the mountain was named after him, as a way to remember his rich legacy after his assassination" sen rob portman
www.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Give him a library in Ohio then holy hell.

He wasn't even some great president, he is rather forgettable actually.
Which isn't a bad thing.

Trump would pounce on this. Guess the people he would represent in Alaska don't matter to him.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: Christosterone

I have always known it as Denali.

But Im British ....


We also have a mountin called lords herefords knob.

Dont think us brits should be telling people how to name mountains

edit on 31-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
McKinley was one of those Curse of Tippecanoe Presidents.

Let's hope there's no "disturbances" from this name change !!!




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Denali is a cooler name anyway and McKinley was kind of a dick. He was also pretty much the first US President bought and paid for by the mega-corporations to make sure their interests were protected. Rockefeller, Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and Vanderbilt owned McKinley.


Ya really, the first one bought and paid for by mega corp.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: Christosterone

I have always known it as Denali.

But Im British ....


We also have a mountin called lords herefords knob.

Dont think us brits should be telling people how to name mountains


A Mountain near were I live was recently for sale

Blencathra for sale


Beat THAT Obama.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
a reply to: jtma508
Do you think the Nepalese and Tibetans wanted to name their mountain Everest?
People that land on the moon trump those who club seals....pun intended
-Christosterone


Because people that killed animals to survive, and actually respected the animals they hunted, are somehow less than those that came after and slaughtered them almost to extinction for profit? Yea.. great choice for an analogy.

I'm all for it.. rename it. Renaming a mountain is scant repayment for the misery that was dealt to the natives of America in the name of "progress."



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join