Mt Mckinnali

[Sam]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...nt-on-tyranny/

A good opinion about changing the name.

As I wrote earlier, there's nobody "bending the rules." The authority rests with the Secretary of the Interior, which is position under the executive branch. Congress named only the national park and renamedthis unilateral executive decision than Bush's EOs regarding "advanced interrogation" is grating, personally.

[Cow Poke]

As I wrote earlier, there's nobody "bending the rules." The authority rests with the Secretary of the Interior, which is position under the executive branch. Congress named only the national park and renamed

You were doing so good up to here....

Folks who criticize this have to, at minimum, show that it was outside the scope of the Secretary's power. Failing that, it's grasping at straws.

And, pretty much here, too....

The fact that a certain set of people is more vocally upset about this unilateral executive decision than Bush's EOs regarding "advanced interrogation" is grating, personally.

Then the gratuitous attack on conservatives.

[Sam]

Then the gratuitous attack on conservatives.

I don't find attacking groups that supported torture and maintain an eerie silence on it now to be gratuitous.

[Cow Poke]

I don't find attacking groups that supported torture and maintain an eerie silence on it now to be gratuitous.

"eerie silence"

Cue the spooky music.

[Sparko]

I don't find attacking groups that supported torture and maintain an eerie silence on it now to be gratuitous.

maybe that attitude gives you a teenie bit of a clue why we think Planned Parenthood should be dismantled and abortion made illegal.

[Sam]

maybe that attitude gives you a teenie bit of a clue why we think Planned Parenthood should be dismantled and abortion made illegal.

I understand perfectly the Conservative attitude regarding abortion. The only thing that bugs me about that is the utter willingness to use duplicity in order to achieve the stated goal.

My comparison is about the grumbling about Obama changing the name of a mountain, even when he has complete authority to do so, vs. the lack of criticism when Bush decided, against US and international law, to start torturing prisoners.

[Teallaura]

tYpin 0n hat fon3 aGain, hehy? :)

I think this is making the same assumption that Cath was making, where Obama's motives are seen as zero-sum and exclusively one thing. I see no reason that the intention "to correct inaction" couldn't or wasn't decided on a while ago and simply implemented to coincide with Obama's trip. Even if not, there's absolutely no rule against doing things for a dual purpose. There's no Congressional jurisdiction and so no misuse of a statute.

Writing and let's see you do better that late with a stylus that kept sticking to the screen.



That it coincides is grounds to strongly suspect that the action is specific to the event - otherwise it's a coincidence that just happens to occur fortuitously after 40 years of stymied effort? Even if I were inclined to agree with coincidence I wouldn't buy that one.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't find attacking groups that supported torture and maintain an eerie silence on it now to be gratuitous.

Broad brush much?

[Sam]

Broad brush much?

I didn't brush broadly; I specifically restricted the set I was speaking about:

The fact that a certain set of people is more vocally upset about this unilateral executive decision than Bush's EOs regarding "advanced interrogation" is grating, personally.

That the great majority of this set are Conservatives, I grant. It also includes some moderates and probably a few Liberals. But I wouldn't attribute this accusation to someone that I had not witnessed opining about both issues.

Anyone who does fall into that set should feel deeply ashamed, in my opinion. Anyone not in that set should not feel that the accusation applies to them.

[One Bad Pig]

I didn't brush broadly; I specifically restricted the set I was speaking about:



That the great majority of this set are Conservatives, I grant. It also includes some moderates and probably a few Liberals. But I wouldn't attribute this accusation to someone that I had not witnessed opining about both issues.

Anyone who does fall into that set should feel deeply ashamed, in my opinion. Anyone not in that set should not feel that the accusation applies to them.

Sam, you didn't bring Bush's EO up here for no reason. If you didn't wish to imply that those who are upset about this EO are not upset about that one, you wouldn't have brought it up AFAICT.

[Sam]

Sam, you didn't bring Bush's EO up here for no reason. If you didn't wish to imply that those who are upset about this EO are not upset about that one, you wouldn't have brought it up AFAICT.

No, if I wanted to imply that I would have done so. What I wanted to do was highlight just how small this EO is in comparison to executive actions that truly were worthy of criticism. It's important to keep that proper scope in mind even if one doesn't agree with the immorality of "enhanced interrogation". Of course, I know that there are numerous posters on this forum who support EI and who probably fit into the set I identified.

But in no way did imply that people upset about this EO are not upset about Bush's torture program. That's an improper inference as it does not follow from what I wrote at all.

[One Bad Pig]

No, if I wanted to imply that I would have done so. What I wanted to do was highlight just how small this EO is in comparison to executive actions that truly were worthy of criticism. It's important to keep that proper scope in mind even if one doesn't agree with the immorality of "enhanced interrogation". Of course, I know that there are numerous posters on this forum who support EI and who probably fit into the set I identified.

But in no way did imply that people upset about this EO are not upset about Bush's torture program. That's an improper inference as it does not follow from what I wrote at all.

Then please be more explicit with what you want to highlight.

[Sam]

Then please be more explicit with what you want to highlight.

I feel like I was sufficiently explicit in identifying the members of the set that I was criticizing. I'm not sure how I could be more explicit without creating some sort of ad-hoc label for the group.