View single post by dogfacedgremlin34
 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2012 03:40 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
dogfacedgremlin34



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