WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > Tim Thomas no-shows Presidential visit with Boston Bruins

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Tim Thomas no-shows Presidential visit with Boston Bruins  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
106th Post
BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: Well, at least I'm not alone.  The Gov. of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts feels the exact same way I do (granted, he's a good pal of Obama, but still).

http://espn.go.com/boston/nhl/story/_/id/7506935/massachusetts-governor-says-boston-bruins-tim-thomas-snub-lack-grace

It's funny that the whole Jan Brewer thing happened just the day after.  It seems that many have lost any sense of respect, or decorum, or how you're meant to behave in a civilized society.  It's like nobdy gives a shit anymore.

STAY CLASSY, USA!

I still beg to ask the question, how is politely declinging an invitation "classless."  How is standing up for something in a respectful way suddenly "disrespectful"?  That'as what we are supposed to do in our political system.  Going to the White House and being rude would be one thing. Politely declining is another.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:08 pm
  PM Quote Reply
107th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48932
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: tofu_chipmunk wrote: mike3775 wrote: Nope, I consider it a first amendment right.  If someone wants to spit, kick, walk, toss, burn,wipe their ass, pick their nose, etc with an American Flag, they have that right to do exactly that

The points of the embroidered stars really are the best thing for digging out boogers.


Shawn Michaels said the same thing about the points of the Maple Leaf on the Canadian Flag.

See how everything comes full circle back to rasslin' here?
he also humped it as well, which was great in its own right

People who get offended by the desecration of a piece of cloth that was probably made in China tend to not care nearly as much about the desecration of the principles the cloth is supposed to represent.  Funny how that works. 



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
108th Post
BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
sek69 wrote: So the takeaway here is that apparently everyone in the US now is incapable of separating the office from the person who holds it.





 

 

How can you come to that conclusion? I see it the opposite way. If you DO respect the office, then you SHOULD take a stand if you think the people IN the office are desecrating it.  I think it's your stance that can't seperate the two. You see a guy in "the office", so he must be respected along with the office he's in, and I do not agree with that at all.  I think you are FAILING to seperate the two by taking that stance. You are letting the office itself protect the crooks in the office, when we should be keenly aware that they are two different things.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:12 pm
  PM Quote Reply
109th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48932
Status: 
Offline
BayouBoogie wrote: sek69 wrote: So the takeaway here is that apparently everyone in the US now is incapable of separating the office from the person who holds it.





 

 

How can you come to that conclusion? I see it the opposite way. If you DO respect the office, then you SHOULD take a stand if you think the people IN the office are desecrating it.  I think it's your stance that can't seperate the two. You see a guy in "the office", so he must be respected along with the office he's in, and I do not agree with that at all.  I think you are FAILING to seperate the two by taking that stance. You are letting the office itself protect the crooks in the office, when we should be keenly aware that they are two different things.

My takeaway from some people's comments here is that they obviously respect the office of the President a lot more than all of the recent Presidents respect the office of the President.  And that attitude won't change that.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
110th Post
BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: mike3775 wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: tofu_chipmunk wrote: mike3775 wrote: Nope, I consider it a first amendment right.  If someone wants to spit, kick, walk, toss, burn,wipe their ass, pick their nose, etc with an American Flag, they have that right to do exactly that

The points of the embroidered stars really are the best thing for digging out boogers.


Shawn Michaels said the same thing about the points of the Maple Leaf on the Canadian Flag.

See how everything comes full circle back to rasslin' here?
he also humped it as well, which was great in its own right

People who get offended by the desecration of a piece of cloth that was probably made in China tend to not care nearly as much about the desecration of the principles the cloth is supposed to represent.  Funny how that works. 

 

 

That's the whole reason people are encouraged to worship the cloth rather than the principles it is menat to represent. that way, people can blatantly disregard the principles, yet still drum up blind support by doihg it for"theflag/country" itself.

It's the same as this argument about disrespecting the Office of the President by calling out the crooks in the office.  We are worshiping the ofiice itself, rather than recognizing that unsavory elements might find their way in that office. 

 

It's false idolitry and its as old as civilization.  Get the people to worship the idols, then you can shift what it is that the idol actually represents, but the people will still defend it, because they've been trained that it is the idol (office/flag) that is important, moreso than any abstract ideas the idol was originally meant to represent.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
111th Post
BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: BayouBoogie wrote: sek69 wrote: So the takeaway here is that apparently everyone in the US now is incapable of separating the office from the person who holds it.





 

 

How can you come to that conclusion? I see it the opposite way. If you DO respect the office, then you SHOULD take a stand if you think the people IN the office are desecrating it.  I think it's your stance that can't seperate the two. You see a guy in "the office", so he must be respected along with the office he's in, and I do not agree with that at all.  I think you are FAILING to seperate the two by taking that stance. You are letting the office itself protect the crooks in the office, when we should be keenly aware that they are two different things.

My takeaway from some people's comments here is that they obviously respect the office of the President a lot more than all of the recent Presidents respect the office of the President.  And that attitude won't change that.



 

 

Well said. 

 

The President is a citizen sworn to uphold that office to the best of his ability. The day we can't hold that citizen responsible or take civilised stances against the men in that office is the day we've officially given up on trying to keep the American expreiment alive.

 

The office and the man in it are two seperate things. This wasn't a United States appreciation day that he boycotted.  It was a photo op that he earned by winning a game, and he politely declined it, as is well within his rights.

Last edited on Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:23 pm by BayouBoogie

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
112th Post
dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
BayouBoogie wrote: sek69 wrote: So the takeaway here is that apparently everyone in the US now is incapable of separating the office from the person who holds it.





 
How can you come to that conclusion? I see it the opposite way. If you DO respect the office, then you SHOULD take a stand if you think the people IN the office are desecrating it.  I think it's your stance that can't seperate the two. You see a guy in "the office", so he must be respected along with the office he's in, and I do not agree with that at all.  I think you are FAILING to seperate the two by taking that stance. You are letting the office itself protect the crooks in the office, when we should be keenly aware that they are two different things.

Boogie, to answer your question above, I'm pretty much in agreement with sek.  I was trying to convey the same message through a number of posts than he summed up in one paragraph (so way to go, sek).

I guess the larger point I'm trying to get across is just that I'm concerned with this alarming trend of incivility that's permeating politics, and the fact that nobody really cares or feels the need to be civil to anybody else so long as "OMG, THEY'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE FRUM ME!!!" I mean, really--at the end of the day, you're a fucking hockey player; frankly, I wouldn't have given a shit if he went or not, so long as he didn't make a big deal about it.  Well, Thomas turned it political, which I thought was entirely unnecessary; this ceremony was completely apolitical, and he managed to turn it into something that it never should've been turned into.  Sometimes, you just have to, literally and figuratively, "take one for the team".

So given my thoughts on this topic, I started thinking about if I would've been so adamant were Bush in office (whom I couldn't stand); I think I would've thought the same, because, as mentioned, it's should be more about the "idea" of being honored at the White House and by the PotUS; it shouldn't be about who the PotUS is at the particular time.



____________________
"I'm putting your worthless fucking ass on ignore so I don't have to read anymore of your pompous arrogant New York big shot bullshit. Good fucking riddance, fuckhead."-Angelic Assassin to rossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
113th Post
dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: BayouBoogie wrote: sek69 wrote: So the takeaway here is that apparently everyone in the US now is incapable of separating the office from the person who holds it.





 
How can you come to that conclusion? I see it the opposite way. If you DO respect the office, then you SHOULD take a stand if you think the people IN the office are desecrating it.  I think it's your stance that can't seperate the two. You see a guy in "the office", so he must be respected along with the office he's in, and I do not agree with that at all.  I think you are FAILING to seperate the two by taking that stance. You are letting the office itself protect the crooks in the office, when we should be keenly aware that they are two different things.

My takeaway from some people's comments here is that they obviously respect the office of the President a lot more than all of the recent Presidents respect the office of the President.  And that attitude won't change that.

Your takeaway should also be that by and large, US citizens, following their own leaders examples, are turning into uncivilized louts who seem to take great pleasure in finding ways to politicize everything and anything even when no politics should be involved.

Look, I'm all for free speech.  I love it to pieces.  But not every occasion falls under the wide swath of free speech.  Sometimes, in certain instances, after having put things in perspective, it's evident that one might--just might--be better off shutting the fuck up and moving on with one's life.  What's the old saying?  "Pick your battles"?

The Thomas situation is great example of this.  What did Thomas gain from this?  Absolutely nothing.  His brand has taken a tremendous hit, and all so he could boo hoo based on his political beliefs.  Something that was meant to be a positive had suddenly turned negative and ugly.  Well, maybe he's okay with that, and I hope he is.  But we'll see if he's still as thrilled with his decision after his jersey sales decrease by a huge percentage.

Last edited on Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:32 pm by dogfacedgremlin34



____________________
"I'm putting your worthless fucking ass on ignore so I don't have to read anymore of your pompous arrogant New York big shot bullshit. Good fucking riddance, fuckhead."-Angelic Assassin to rossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
114th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48932
Status: 
Offline
dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: BayouBoogie wrote: sek69 wrote: So the takeaway here is that apparently everyone in the US now is incapable of separating the office from the person who holds it.





 
How can you come to that conclusion? I see it the opposite way. If you DO respect the office, then you SHOULD take a stand if you think the people IN the office are desecrating it.  I think it's your stance that can't seperate the two. You see a guy in "the office", so he must be respected along with the office he's in, and I do not agree with that at all.  I think you are FAILING to seperate the two by taking that stance. You are letting the office itself protect the crooks in the office, when we should be keenly aware that they are two different things.

Boogie, to answer your question above, I'm pretty much in agreement with sek.  I was trying to convey the same message through a number of posts than he summed up in one paragraph (so way to go, sek).

I guess the larger point I'm trying to get across is just that I'm concerned with this alarming trend of incivility that's permeating politics, and the fact that nobody really cares or feels the need to be civil to anybody else so long as "OMG, THEY'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE FRUM ME!!!" I mean, really--at the end of the day, you're a fucking hockey player; frankly, I wouldn't have given a shit if he went or not, so long as he didn't make a big deal about it.  Well, Thomas turned it political, which I thought was entirely unnecessary; this ceremony was completely apolitical, and he managed to turn it into something that it never should've been turned into.  Sometimes, you just have to, literally and figuratively, "take one for the team".

So given my thoughts on this topic, I started thinking about if I would've been so adamant were Bush in office (whom I couldn't stand); I think I would've thought the same, because, as mentioned, it's should be more about the "idea" of being honored at the White House and by the PotUS; it shouldn't be about who the PotUS is at the particular time.

But this has nothing to do with lack of civility.  Red herrings have been brought up throughout this thread including the Rep who shouted out "Liar" and that nutjob Jan Brewer who is one of the main reasons why Arizona is a laughingstock.  Maybe there are civility issues there.  But the main topic is a hockey player who simply wouldn't meet with the president.  No one made a big deal about it except the media and people in this thread who decided they wanted to take offense.  Thomas made one very brief statement about the issue that was perfectly civil and now is trying to move on.  So the civility argument just doesn't hold up.  The only lack of civility shown here has been towards Thomas.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
115th Post
tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote:
dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: tofu_chipmunk wrote: mike3775 wrote: Nope, I consider it a first amendment right.  If someone wants to spit, kick, walk, toss, burn,wipe their ass, pick their nose, etc with an American Flag, they have that right to do exactly that

The points of the embroidered stars really are the best thing for digging out boogers.


Shawn Michaels said the same thing about the points of the Maple Leaf on the Canadian Flag.

See how everything comes full circle back to rasslin' here?
he also humped it as well, which was great in its own right


The Canadian flag is a great lay, will do shit that the ol' stars and stripes won't.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
116th Post
dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: BayouBoogie wrote: sek69 wrote: So the takeaway here is that apparently everyone in the US now is incapable of separating the office from the person who holds it.





 
How can you come to that conclusion? I see it the opposite way. If you DO respect the office, then you SHOULD take a stand if you think the people IN the office are desecrating it.  I think it's your stance that can't seperate the two. You see a guy in "the office", so he must be respected along with the office he's in, and I do not agree with that at all.  I think you are FAILING to seperate the two by taking that stance. You are letting the office itself protect the crooks in the office, when we should be keenly aware that they are two different things.

Boogie, to answer your question above, I'm pretty much in agreement with sek.  I was trying to convey the same message through a number of posts than he summed up in one paragraph (so way to go, sek).

I guess the larger point I'm trying to get across is just that I'm concerned with this alarming trend of incivility that's permeating politics, and the fact that nobody really cares or feels the need to be civil to anybody else so long as "OMG, THEY'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE FRUM ME!!!" I mean, really--at the end of the day, you're a fucking hockey player; frankly, I wouldn't have given a shit if he went or not, so long as he didn't make a big deal about it.  Well, Thomas turned it political, which I thought was entirely unnecessary; this ceremony was completely apolitical, and he managed to turn it into something that it never should've been turned into.  Sometimes, you just have to, literally and figuratively, "take one for the team".

So given my thoughts on this topic, I started thinking about if I would've been so adamant were Bush in office (whom I couldn't stand); I think I would've thought the same, because, as mentioned, it's should be more about the "idea" of being honored at the White House and by the PotUS; it shouldn't be about who the PotUS is at the particular time.

But this has nothing to do with lack of civility.  Red herrings have been brought up throughout this thread including the Rep who shouted out "Liar" and that nutjob Jan Brewer who is one of the main reasons why Arizona is a laughingstock.  Maybe there are civility issues there.  But the main topic is a hockey player who simply wouldn't meet with the president.  No one made a big deal about it except the media and people in this thread who decided they wanted to take offense.  Thomas made one very brief statement about the issue that was perfectly civil and now is trying to move on.  So the civility argument just doesn't hold up.  The only lack of civility shown here has been towards Thomas.

But you had some red herrings of your own at the beginning of this thread, by claiming that any of the past presidential "no shows" athletes were politically motivated.  None of them really were, save *possibly maybe* that Steelers guy who ended up showing up anyways.

Look, at the end of the day, I agree with you entirely--this has blown up way bigger than it should have ever gotten.  But my main point is this whole situation could've been avoided entirely if Thomas had just "respectfully declined" and not turned it into something political.

Last edited on Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:41 pm by dogfacedgremlin34



____________________
"I'm putting your worthless fucking ass on ignore so I don't have to read anymore of your pompous arrogant New York big shot bullshit. Good fucking riddance, fuckhead."-Angelic Assassin to rossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
117th Post
dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: So there is a responsibility to attend if invited, even though someone doesn't want to go if they are an athlete?  Maybe the teams better start putting it in the athletes contracts that they must attend these functions then, oh wait, then the uproar would be that they are forcing people to attend, which I say they can't have it both ways.



Read my post above again.  I don't give a shit if nobody wants to attend.  But just "respectfully decline"; you don't need commentary on why you're a no show. 



____________________
"I'm putting your worthless fucking ass on ignore so I don't have to read anymore of your pompous arrogant New York big shot bullshit. Good fucking riddance, fuckhead."-Angelic Assassin to rossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
118th Post
dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: But this has nothing to do with lack of civility.  
But that's the thing:  it does.

Let's say I'm having a Super Bowl party and I decide to invite you, rossi.  I send you an Evite.  You respond no, and in the commentary section, you say, "I fucking hate your guts, your house sucks, and your dog smells!  Why would you think in a million years I would attend your stupid Super Bowl party!?!"

Now, couldn't you have just resonded "no" and left it at that?  Why would you feel the need to let everybody on my invite list know your personal feelings towards me unless your were (a) a jackass, or (b) an attention whore?  You just turned my innocuous Evite into something it wasn't nor should it have ever been.

The moral of this story?  I'm not having a Super Bowl party this year.

Last edited on Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:58 pm by dogfacedgremlin34



____________________
"I'm putting your worthless fucking ass on ignore so I don't have to read anymore of your pompous arrogant New York big shot bullshit. Good fucking riddance, fuckhead."-Angelic Assassin to rossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 04:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
119th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48932
Status: 
Offline
dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: srossi wrote: But this has nothing to do with lack of civility.  
But that's the thing:  it does.

Let's say I'm having a Super Bowl party and I decide to invite you, rossi.  I send you an Evite.  You respond no, and in the commentary section, you say, "I fucking hate your guts, your house sucks, and your dog smells!  Why would you think in a million years I would attend your stupid Super Bowl party!?!"

Now, couldn't you have just resonded "no" and left it at that?  Why would you feel the need to let everybody on my invite list know your personal feelings towards me unless your were (a) a jackass, or (b) an attention whore?  You just turned my innocuous Evite into something it wasn't nor should it have ever been.

The moral of this story?  I'm not having a Super Bowl party this year.

You were fine until you made that last post, then you went off the rails again.  If you can find anything in Thomas' statement remotely like "I hate your fucking guts" I'll eat my monitor.  He basically did just say no.  He didn't hold a press conference and eat Obama's dog.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 04:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
120th Post
BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: srossi wrote: But this has nothing to do with lack of civility.  
But that's the thing:  it does.

Let's say I'm having a Super Bowl party and I decide to invite you, rossi.  I send you an Evite.  You respond no, and in the commentary section, you say, "I fucking hate your guts, your house sucks, and your dog smells!  Why would you think in a million years I would attend your stupid Super Bowl party!?!"

Now, couldn't you have just resonded "no" and left it at that?  Why would you feel the need to let everybody on my invite list know your personal feelings towards me unless your were (a) a jackass, or (b) an attention whore?  You just turned my innocuous Evite into something it wasn't nor should it have ever been.

The moral of this story?  I'm not having a Super Bowl party this year.




Again, that example does not fit what happened at all. He declined and  issued a short sweet statement to answer the critics & made it clear he's not going to talk about it publicly again. No cussing. No personal insults. He didn't even single Obama out personally. Hell, he went out of his way to say he has a problem with BOTH parties and the actions of ALL branches of Federal Government.

Your examples just are not relevant to what actually happened. The first part where you just say "no thanks' and leave it at that is much closer to what actually happened. 

You keep trying to add this element of personal hostilty against Obama that simply has not been dsiplayed on Thomas' part.   I can't help but think the criticism of Thomas is a purely partisan reaction from the "you can't insult Obama" crowd.

 
And I still don't see why being politically motivated is worse than simply not giving a shit? To me, not giving a shit IS insulting to the office, whereas having a reason not to go (and again, Thomas did NOT make the issue of this, the mdeia did) shows that he DOES care about the office and feels this is worth taking a stance. It also shows that he has the ability to seperate the office from the man, rather than thinking the man IS the office.


Last edited on Fri Jan 27th, 2012 04:43 pm by BayouBoogie

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 02:51 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > Tim Thomas no-shows Presidential visit with Boston Bruins Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems