Makes you wonder what they think when they see the Statue of Liberty right there in their own back yard. Just a vestige of yesteryear?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member
Makes you wonder what they think when they see the Statue of Liberty right there in their own back yard. Just a vestige of yesteryear?
Member
When the NYT mentions commons sense. All I have to do is laugh. The whole company does not has common sense enough to pour piss out of a boot... As far as the NParks. Maybe the NYT staff should be dropped aff at a NP that is having a crack head convention... I doubt seriousy anyone at the NYT has even see a National Park.
Senior Member
Too bad the 9-11-2001 POS scumbags didn't fly those planes into the NY Times' building instead.
We must not believe the Evil One when he tells us that there is nothing we can do in the face of violence, injustice and sin. - Pope Francis I
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure that if Obama is going to repeal CCW (which would be subject to a rule changing process) in national parks, that he hardly needs any encouragement from the NYT.
It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen
Member
"The administration — again — also has ignored the point of a public comment period. It received 140,000 comments on this proposed rule change, the vast majority opposing it, and still went ahead. "
Horseshit, I came across a link showing the comments a week or so ago and after 5 mintues of flicking through them came across ONE opinion arguing against it with the typical flawed logic.
Senior Member
So when can we carry in national parks?
Member
I really don't want to start anything and I certainly don't agree with the 'article'...but you guys realize this is on the 'opinion' page, right?
When preparing to engage in a battle of wits, it's best to ensure you're using quality ammunition.
Senior Member
Yes. What else would it be?Originally Posted by M4tographer
It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen
Member
I was just getting the impression that folks think this is the official written gospel of the NYT. Unless I've missed something completely, the Opinion pages of news journals tend to be random. *edit* I also realize this is an op/ed piece and that the staffers choose it, but how many other things have they published that we agree with? As I said, I don't agree with the article (nor am I a fan of the Times) but I realize it's someone's opinion. I just think the thread title is a little misleading.
Last edited by M4tographer; 12-10-08 at 16:34.
When preparing to engage in a battle of wits, it's best to ensure you're using quality ammunition.
Member
How is the title misleading? First words are: "NY Times" - that is clear.
next word is: "urges". Hey, any newspaper can urge Obama to do anything at all - no one is claiming that its anything more than that.
I think it is clear what this thread is about from its title.
Furthermore, only the 1st half is the op-ed piece.
The rest deals with this: "See: 73 FR 74966-02"
That is the cite to the rule from the Federal Register - where all rules are required to be published. I quoted parts of the final rule - that is all.
I was just getting the impression that folks think this is the official written gospel of the NYT. Unless I've missed something completely, the Opinion pages of news journals tend to be random. *edit* I also realize this is an op/ed piece and that the staffers choose it, but how many other things have they published that we agree with? As I said, I don't agree with the article (nor am I a fan of the Times) but I realize it's someone's opinion. I just think the thread title is a little misleading.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks