[GOD]

Originally Posted by gambitnut

There are three topics that, while not related to the Blazers, it has been generally decided are allowed to remain on the main forum, other basketball news, Oregon and personal topics about one or more of our posters. I moved the TO booted from the Eagles thread, the others, including the one about Schilly's baby that you forgot to mention, fall under one of the exceptions IMO. I also moved the sa1177 birthday thread from the OT Forum, where it was started, to the main forum.

Also, we used to allow anything that people wanted to talk about on the main forum but we got to divided by politics so that topic was banned from there. When we got the OT Forum, we decided to comprimise and allow politics in there, but we aren't ready to allow it back in the main forum yet.

I disagree the the rules, but OH well.


Back to the topic, I think that there are at least a half dozen issues that this administration has been so completely wrong about that hundreds, if not thousands of American lives have been lost because of them. They have no regard for the average American, and are willing to allow Americans to lose their lives so that some of their corprate buddies can gain another buck. They should be jailed..

[GOD]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

The difference between this thread and the others is that its primary purpose for posting it is for one half of the board to tick off the other half. Do we really need that?

most threads that mention Sheed, Bonzi, Nash, Trader Bob, are just as devisive on this board, Yes, they are alowed to be posted because they are about the team in some way, Just as is Nates politial views. I completely disagree with the notion that we should not post a topic that will devide the board. That makes for some good debate.
Homer says "mmmmmm debate"

[chromekilla]

I don't think that Nate should comment in public on political issues.I don't think anyone that's invloved in sports should comment publicly about governmental,political issues.

[GOD]

Originally Posted by Zidane

I don't think that Nate should comment in public on political issues.I don't think anyone that's invloved in sports should comment publicly about governmental,political issues.

I think that if people have political opinions that it's their duty to express their opinions regardless of if it upsets those around them. We live in a democracy which thrives on free expression and trade of ideas. Conflicts beget learning and understanding, which begets change. No matter if you are a republican, democrat, libratarian, or anything else, express your opinion, and help raise the level of debate in society.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by thylo

most threads that mention Sheed, Bonzi, Nash, Trader Bob, are just as devisive on this board, Yes, they are alowed to be posted because they are about the team in some way, Just as is Nates politial views. I completely disagree with the notion that we should not post a topic that will devide the board. That makes for some good debate.
Homer says "mmmmmm debate"

I wonder if your desire to keep this thread on the main board for "good debate" purposes would be as great if Nate or some other person in the Blazer organization had spouted off some opinion in support of the current administration.

This country has become so totally polarized that there is no "good debate" anymore. There's simply political hatred spewed by both sides. Listen to talk shows on either side and you'll see more angry spittle flying than well thought out ideas. As soon as a new administration takes office, the other side starts digging for dirt to try and find the next scandal and call in yet another special investigator.

I'm sick of it.

[Goldmember]

I can't say that I agree with Nate. A major hurricane (the likes of which have never been seen in this country) hits a major population, the fact of the matter is people are probably going to die. It's sad and it's tragic - but the government didn't do it. I don't know, maybe they could have done things differently, but there's not a long history of presidents having to deal with something like this. Chances are, most any through history, even the ones that were considered great, would have failed to save every life in a region with more than a couple million people.

[GOD]

I don't think the issue is that the bush administration should have been able to save every life, just that there was a gross mistakes made prior to the disaster, during the disaster, and post disaster, that most likely did account for the lives of at least some of the dead. Bush appointed a crony to head FEMA who had no right being in charge of such an important organization. He had previously been in charge of horse competitions and never did any large scale relief work to justify his hire. Then there is the issue of not enough National Guard because of the war and how it was designed. Also, in order to have more money for the war effort, one of the federal appropriations that was withdrawn was funding the couple years earlier to fortify the very levees that broke. Then there was the disconnect with the poor of the city, and both local and national governments not seeming to realize that many of the poor and indigent of New Orleans were unable to heed warnings, and were left to remain. Immediately after the disaster there were reports coming out of the white house that were meant to assure the American People that everything was going swimmingly and that they were hearing that every part of the rescue effort was going off without a hitch, and it was not until after the press started going ballistic, that the white house and govt agencies started to admit that the rescue effort was going poorly. All the above reasons were just off the top of my head, and if I were not busy at work I would continue, but yes, I do blame the administration for the loss of some lives. They are given the duty to protect the citizens, and they fell far short.

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by Goldmember

I can't say that I agree with Nate. A major hurricane (the likes of which have never been seen in this country) hits a major population, the fact of the matter is people are probably going to die. It's sad and it's tragic - but the government didn't do it. I don't know, maybe they could have done things differently, but there's not a long history of presidents having to deal with something like this. Chances are, most any through history, even the ones that were considered great, would have failed to save every life in a region with more than a couple million people.

If Bush would have appointed someone to lead FEMA with more credentials than Michael Brown had, the preparation and response would have been better. If appointing an idiot to run an important job wasn't a pattern with Bush, you could almost forgive him. But since it is a pattern, many of the deaths that could have been avoided with better preparation and response rest squarely on the president's shoulders.

Cronyism at its worst.

-Pop