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

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I disagree, neither party is altruistic and in my opinion they would have been railing about the Republicans undoing something the great Woodrow Wilson signed into existence.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, I think the Dems would be fine with it, actually.
Like Mystic said.
It's a decent thing to do. A non-issue. The Repubs could have earned a bit of respect by doing so!!........but Noooooo!!! They blow it again by continuing the knee-jerky obstructionism and pitch a fit (because they didn't think of it first?). They just can't get along or agree with ANYBODY that they have summarily villainized.....

seems to be...

to me

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
No, I think the Dems would be fine with it, actually.
Like Mystic said.
It's a decent thing to do. A non-issue. The Repubs could have earned a bit of respect by doing so!!........but Noooooo!!! They blow it again by continuing the knee-jerky obstructionism and pitch a fit (because they didn't think of it first?). They just can't get along or agree with ANYBODY that they have summarily villainized.....

seems to be...

to me

But it appears it was a Republican initiative when it was first proposed.

Do you honestly believe if there was a Republican in office there would be no manufactured Democrat 'outrage'? Both parties are filled with s***heads and the only difference is the little letter they use to preface their names.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not really a feasible trip since he would have been incommunicado for a lengthy period of time.

What?

Okay. I'm lost here.
He was alive when the gold prospector named the mountain as a campaign contribution. Then he won. He was unaware that the guy did that???

What am I missing? Why would he be incognito?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It was an Alaskan Republican...who basically went against their own party's thoughts on it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
What?

Okay. I'm lost here.
He was alive when the gold prospector named the mountain as a campaign contribution. Then he won. He was unaware that the guy did that???

What am I missing? Why would he be incognito?

You asked why he did not go to the mountain that was named for him. It would have been a several months journey there and back and would have not been logitically feasible for the President to make as he would have been incommunicado for a lengthy period of time.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do you honestly believe if there was a Republican in office there would be no manufactured Democrat 'outrage'? Both parties are filled with s***heads and the only difference is the little letter they use to preface their names.

What? This happened in a Republican state. It was first introduced like 50 years ago.....(ETA 40 years ago - see below) (renaming it)

The government formally recognized the name in 1917, and efforts to reverse the move began in Alaska in 1975. In an awkward compromise struck in 1980, the national park surrounding it was named Denali National Park and Preserve, but the mountain continued to be called Mount McKinley.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, introduced legislation in January to rename the peak, but Ohio lawmakers sought to block the move. In June, an Interior Department official said in testimony before Congress that the administration had “no objection” to Ms. Murkowski’s proposed change.

In a video released on Sunday, Ms. Murkowski cheered Mr. Obama’s decision.

NYT article

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It was an Alaskan Republican...who basically went against their own party's thoughts on it.

But not Alaskans so good on him.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

ok, did he at least send a letter saying he was grateful and recognized the campaign contribution?

If not, that just proves it was trivial and not worthy of his attention. How long had Alaska been a state?


I really don't know, Gus....just following along here.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
What? This happened in a Republican state. It was first introduced like 50 years ago.....(ETA 40 years ago - see below) (renaming it)

I am well aware of that, which is why I mentioned it.

My contention is that neither party fails to capitalize on a good non-issue. They are both equally intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It never should have been renamed to begin with. It was Denali first. This is fitting and right.

It might be right in reverting it back to it's historical name, however, the problem resides with the president continuing to usurp congress and using his authority through executive orders to change policy. He's absolutely distorted what EO's are for. That should be the only question here. Not what sounds cooler for a mountain name!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
ok, did he at least send a letter saying he was grateful and recognized the campaign contribution?

No clue, and naming a giant pile of rocks after some politician really is not a contribution. More like obsequence.

If not, that just proves it was trivial and not worthy of his attention. How long had Alaska been a state?

It had not been, it was still a territory. It would appear to me that McKinley did not really seem that concerend about it since it was not made offical until long after he was assassinated.

originally posted by: Bearack
. . . president continuing to usurp congress and using his authority through executive orders to change policy.

Did he?

I'd like to know the details of who did what.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My contention is that neither party fails to capitalize on a good non-issue. They are both equally intellectually dishonest.

No argument there!!!!!

It's a reality-tv "schoolyard bullies" show.....

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
No argument there!!!!!

It's a reality-tv "schoolyard bullies" show....

Agreed. If WDumb-43 did this there would still be outrage.

Everyone loves to get thier panties in a twist over nothing.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Popcorn?

WDumb-43

Ehhh...you can do better than that!!! How about "Dumble-yeW"...........

a reply to: Bearack

Well ya when you have an uninformed look at the situation you could say that, doesn't make it true.

It was the Secretary of the Interior that did the name change with the power given by a law passed decades ago.

The native people have been trying to do this for 40 years and it is finally done.

Ohio can take a hike, if they want to honor McKinley so bad, do it in their own state.

Just more political bickering saying that this is barry just going around congress, congress didn't need to get involved.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bearack

Well ya when you have an uninformed look at the situation you could say that, doesn't make it true.

It was the Secretary of the Interior that did the name change with the power given by a law passed decades ago.

The native people have been trying to do this for 40 years and it is finally done.

Ohio can take a hike, if they want to honor McKinley so bad, do it in their own state.

Just more political bickering saying that this is barry just going around congress, congress didn't need to get involved.

Star for you... I let my self get suckered into a single op'ed that was totally disingenuous and I posted without additional research. I was 100% inaccurate and thank you for the correction and please pardon my hasten response above!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Popcorn?

Sure, I have this bacon flavor stuff I can sprinkle on it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think WDumb-43 was pretty good, and you have bacon flavoring for popcorn?

The masons really are going to take over the world!