| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shepsky |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 05:30:12
Americans, please explain to me why the media is blowing this up. If this happened in Canada I think a lot of people would say "Yeah, well, I really don't want to meet Stephen Harper either"
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 23:26:28
Don't let the door hit yer on that way out there, son....
You obviously have a nice command of language and intellect, shame it's all wasted on your self-inflated opinion of yourself. Just cause it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't understood, just some of us prefer to let each to their own, regarding opinions that may be overly inflammatory, that was the stuff that most likely, by myself anyways, purposely being avoided, to keep the discussion more hockey related, this being a hockey forum afterall. That and the fact that Thomas' beliefs had nothing to do with what most of the discussion centered on, next time read with comprehension, it helps.
But thanks again for the education on the Republican right,(no, I knew that term, didn't even have to look it up on google!), and actually I even know who Glenn Beck is and Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin, but thanks again.
I appreciate your invitation for a more intellectual discussion, but I don't think there would be enough room under your bridge for both of us. A troll with proper grammar is still a troll after all.
|
| Guest9477 |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 22:10:20
No thanks, don't want to join your little knitting circle—the grammar and spelling alone hurts my head. Just dropping a little truth bomb on y'all so you can maybe get your heads out of your asses and your asses out of your mommy's basement.
The fact that NONE of you even mentioned that Thomas's actions stemmed from his affiliation with a radical, fundamentalist organization speaks volumes to the level of intelligence that pervades this discussion (hint: not very high).
Hopefully I've opened some of your eyes and you are ready to engage in a more meaningful and fruitful existence.
My work is done here... |
| Shepsky |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 20:10:23
First of all I would like to apologize for all the comotion that I caused with this thread. We're all friends here, with differing opinions, Tim Thomas probably should have gone to the white house, or at the very least just said "not going for personal reasons. PERIOD"
and now to my next point.... Guest9477. I love how this guy claims he is a fellow Canadian, and then tells us how much he knows about american politics, and how he knows exactly what Tim Thomas (an American) thinks, and that he knows Tim Thomas' politcal beliefs, and who he worships, all because Google told him, I know that no untrue information has EVER been allowed on the internet, so any article this jerkoff read relating to Tim Thomas' political beliefs MUST be exactly true, and not just bashing him, especially one written after this incident happened. This feed has gone on a long time, and now it will go even longer as everyone gets to jump on and say what they think of guest9477, after all he was kind enough to say what he thinks of all of us. What a d***. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 11:16:41
Google? What is this google you speak of?
I went there to see what the fuss was about, typed in arrogant, imbecilic, contentious, rude, pompous, and for good measure, I searched, 'what to call someone who uses assumptions in a derogatory way', and whatta ya know!
It came back with one line.....Guest9477 on PUH.
I guess some of us can do more than 'read about hockey'.
Next time, read the whole thread twice, you are the first one to bring his own beliefs up, no one else of import did. You missed the whole point of the debate to this point, but, nice of you to step in as a 'guest' and school all of us.
You should sign up, i would be refreshing to have a name to put to your rhetoric, instead of my mental visual of what sits in the bottom of a commode.
'under-informed'. 'ashamed', 'Get yer heads out of your...'
Really? |
| Guest9477 |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 07:29:41
Wow. It's amazing how under-informed you all seem to be. I'm especially ashamed of my fellow Canadians here. Just because you're hockey fans doesn't mean you can't read about anything else, does it?
The problem with Tim Thomas's snub of the White House isn't THAT he did it, but WHY he did it. He's an ultra right-wing (not hockey) conservative that follows the Tea Party movement and worships one of their most fanatical and disingenuous leaders, Glenn Beck (do none of you know what Google is?).
For all you xenophobes out there, Glenn Beck is the AMerican equivalent of the all the evil Muslims you read about that are threatening your way of life. He is a racist, homophobic, fundamentalist bible-thumper (who "converted" to Mormonism. How does anyone just decide one day that Jesus lived in America?).
Tim Thomas buys in to all the crap that this psycho and his followers try to push on the American people and this is why he snubbed Obama. He's an ignorant, redneck fanatic and represents everything that's wrong with America. It's amazing that you all seem caught up in the "freedom of speech" aspect and not the fact that he's a fanatic fundamentalist moron.
Get yer heads out of your asses people.
Frightening...
Oh, and Happy Family Day!!
MW |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 07:03:41
This is what I was referring to with Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls8RXqyZDsk
Otherwise, I have no problem with your different reaction to me to TT knowing about the disruption inevitability and nevertheless going ahead with his decision, BUT, let's frame the situation accurately.
1. As you have said, there is no way he didn't know his decision would cause disruption.
2. He went ahead anyway (thereby obviously not caring about the disruption as much as something else).
3. The disruption, made by him (as it wouldn't have happened without his decision), occurred.
As I have said, I think there were other ways he could have gone about about expressing his "very strong moral convictions" with less disruption to the team. Frankly, I just think it was a great misjudgment on his part because my guess (of course I don't know - but reasonable speculation I think) is that he would not have been in MAJOR AGONY standing for a short time at the White House. I know I know. I am not him blah, blah, blah. Sorry, I just don't buy it. He wasn't being asked to stand with some mass murderer dictator or something.
Yeah, my response is a bit different from the others I guess. The pre-event timing thing is not the main argument for me really. I just plain think Timmy T should have gone to the thing, ate the whores dorves (always wanted to say that) and see the frigg'n white house with his buds! Then say whatever the hell he wanted to say after in the same polite and diplomatic way. |
| n/a |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 03:48:29
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
By the way, Slozo, regarding your questioning of society, you might want to take the George Carlin route and just give up on society. 
But while we're on the question game, here is another one for you:
Is there any way possible on God's not so green anymore earth that Tim could have made this decision without knowing that it would cause at least a little disruption to the team? 
I know everyone wants me to "give up" on this thread, but just answering Andyhack here, as diplomatically and succinctly as possible.
My answers:
1) George Carlin did not give up on society. If he had, he wouldn't have continued to bravely point out things in his humorous and touching rants that no other comic would touch. I am the same, I think.
2) No, it is not possible that Tim Thomas did not know that his decision would cause disruption.
Why should that have been the decider to do it or not? Are we supposed to always toe the line, even when it goes against our very strong moral convictions/beliefs? THAT is my question, that I keep pounding on, not understanding everyone's response that because he "caused a disturbance" in his decision he should have kept his mouth shut.
Like I paraphrased earlier, I am glad that even among hockey superstars, there are still people with strong convictions willing to take flak for what they believe in.
. . . . and, I'm done!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 11:15:46
Okay FER, that's a double tap out. I'm not sure that's ever happened? Let there not be a 3rd!
It doesn't shock me at all that a political based thread/debate has come to this! Politics and religion are topics that obviously are difficult to see eye to eye.
Letting this one die is prob best for all....... |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 08:37:58
I guess you missed my tapout......
Thank you for making sweeping assumptions about not only what Tim Thomas was thinking, but also for making the same about what I think, understand, don't understand, can't understand, and by some of the typed diarhhea, am unable? to understand.
The only issue I have had, for the umpteenth time, is why just prior, why not after the event, leaving the, 'not attending due to personal reasons', in play until the 'team' was able to enjoy their moment.
You assumed I was against him standing up for his beliefs and rights, I never said or suggested that.
You assumed I wouldn't understand the media implications of what he said, I never said or suggested that.
You continue to pound home points that I have said I agree with, without any consideration for any opinion other than your own, I hear you, I hear you, I hear you.
I am fine with you having your opinion about the debacle, I have stated that. I have tried to explain my reasoning for why mine are what they are.
The difference being, in you rebuttals, I am wrong, you are right, rah rah rah, Tim Thomas is a paragon of independence and free speech, fine. I agree with that. I have only said, time and time again, that he put everyone else around him, albeit unjustifiably, in to an awkward position. I prefer the route of least resistance, and that has no bearing on any weaknesses on my part, regardless of what anyone may think. It only allows one to look at things objectively I think, and not be forced to have to bully my opinions on anyone else.
Now for the second time. I cede to your brow beating, we have differing opinions, I would not want to be considered trying to change yours, they...just...differ. To assume yours or mine are right would indeed be arrogant. I have never made that assumption and won't, you are not able to do the same?
Thank you for the explanation of Strawman, see my thoughts above for your assumptions of my intelligence.
Geeez, man! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 07:42:16
By the way, Slozo, regarding your questioning of society, you might want to take the George Carlin route and just give up on society.
But while we're on the question game, here is another one for you:
Is there any way possible on God's not so green anymore earth that Tim could have made this decision without knowing that it would cause at least a little disruption to the team? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 07:19:16
Well Slozo, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Frankly, I think yours is one of arrogance and ignorance in saying that you can not agree 'one iota," that Thomas used the timing of this team event to highlight his personal opinions. Even further, eluding to the point that Thomas was doing his team a favor by bringing the comments out when he did rather than earlier, later, or perhaps never. With that, I will bid adieu to this debate. It is easy to see that some debates can be between differing opinions but maintain mutual respect for the other opinion. In other cases (such as this) that mutual respect is lost, as is the ability to debate. |
| n/a |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 07:01:45
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Wow, again, for someone who used the strawman accusation so, so many times, you sure aren't shy about using it when it bolsters your opinions, which by the way, I understood from your first post, and have spent a few subsequent posts of my own, restating that.
He made it a 'big deal', with content and timing, is all I am saying(actually, have been saying since the start, but will reiterate again), that drew attention to the Bruins, intended or not, it did, the facts are there, in the rebuttal statements Jacobs, Neely, and other team members were forced to make to distance themselves from Thomas' opinion.
That is my only concern for the whole thing, it took his right to free speech, which I agree with you on completely, and caused undue attention for his team and employer.
Not sure if I can make my opinion any clearer, and I am not asking for your approval on it, as it is my opinion.
Now take your boot off the back of my head, so I can get it out the sand, as it seems to be you're keeping it there any time I suggest a thought different than yours.....wait I've heard this song before!
My comment about heads in sand isn't a strawman argument, sir. It's me paraphrasing in a jackass way that I think you are keeping yourself blind to some realities.
A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's point of view or contention, then proceed to demolish this point, all the while ignoring the fact that the poster never really argued it. The"straw man" is easy to burn/wreck . . .
I don't think I have misrepresnted any of your arguments, but hey - I could be wrong. At least once a year it happens 
* * * * *
You keep saying that he (Tim Thomas) made it a big deal with his timing and content. I can't see any evidence that would ever lead me to agree with this even one iota.
From what I have seen in the past, controversial decisions that are released a week or more in advance get MORE press coverage, get talked about for longer. My guess is that this would have been seen as grandstanding by everyone had Thomas given his decision not to go a few days or more beforehand.
In terms of content, again - I don't think he could have stated his point of view MORE diplomatically than he did, nor as non-partisan. IT was also short and sweet, and he didn't preach or put down anyone. The only thing I can see here that he could have done differently is issue no statement at all - just not go to the event, and give no explanation.
Again, judging from history, moves like that are always viewed in the most negative light, and I can easily see that he would have been blasted as a racist prick. There would have been an uproar from many on why can't this guy just issue at least a small statement explaining why he's not going, so we know it's for good reasons?
That is why I think you have your head in the sand.
I think you ignore the fact that forcing him to do something which he feels is integrally against everything he stands for is somehow a better option than just standing up for what you believe in.
Clearly, you have a different opinion than me, but no, I don't just react because of that. As stated above, I have clearly stated reasons for disagreeing with you on this point.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| n/a |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 06:35:49
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
You both didn't answer my question.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Sorry Slozo, I thought the answer was so obvious that it didn't need answering.
The answer is yes. Based on the media hype behind it, all the stir that it caused, and the fact the Bruins had to release their own press release as well as each of Thomas team mates were questioned about it during all star week end, it absolutely was a big deal.
So that is your answer. If you want to discuss if it should or should not have been a big deal then that is matter of opinion that I doubt I would even want to get involved in. But the simple fact of the matter is that his actions did create a big deal. Rightly or wrongly, agree or disagree, it created a big deal. That is the reality of the situation.
I believe Thomas used the timing intentionally to use the invitation of his team to the White House to bring more light to his personal views. I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about that?? It is not what should or should not have happened. What did happen Slozo??
Now that I answered your question, please feel free to answer mine. Why did Thomas wait until the day prior of the event to make his post rather than make the post when he learned of the invitation???
Ok, I will answer your question Beans:
He gave his short message only a day before the event to (and these are just my good guesses, remember):
1) Mitigate the negative feedback bound to come from such a refusal
(that is, to REDUCE the time/media reaction over it)
2) He knew of the invitation as soon as they won the cup, Beans. All the players know they will get invited to the white house for the pres to get some good press. Just that no one thinks about that stuff really while trying to win the cup, it's not a primary focus or concern obviously!
So he probably started to think about only when the team got their agenda for team related events, schedules, etc.
I am sure he gave it some serious thought. I am sure he also knew his answer well before the event, and clearly thought so strongly on this issue that it was something he in good concience could not do. The fact that others think it's "not a big deal" does not make it less of a breach of moral conduct for Tim Thomas. He clearly reached the decision that it was something he felt so strongly about, that he would be willing to stand up and take the inevitable flak that anyone gets when they stand for any kind of ideal in the face of politics.
And, he probably thought that making a short and diplomatic statement just before the event - not a week before, or two weeks before, where it might become this big huge thing that gets talked about even more before the fact - was the prudent thing to do from a team standpoint.
So yeah, he stood up for his own ideals/concience 1st; and did his best to satisfy team concerns 2nd.
And all that is probably well lost in the propoganda media blitz that followed, as they tried to make it sound as if Tim Thomas was "crazy", ungenuine, flippant, selfish, etc etc. Pretty terrible stuff, for a guy who comes off as a very nice guy and great teammate.
There's your answer Beans.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 05:21:58
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
[I see. The media only reacts as an independant thinking entity, never given to overreaction or politicking or influenc from government. . . riiiiight.
Keep yer head in the sand, dude!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Slozo, there is actually great irony to your post above because, unless TT's head was "in the sand," he ought to have known verrrry well that such an overreaction was coming (REGARDLESS of whether he, you, Beans, FER or I think that his actions did not demand a "big deal reaction").
In and of itself, do I think what he did demanded a "big deal reaction"? Not really, no (some deal maybe, but not a big deal). But do I think TT knew or ought to have known that it would become a "big deal reaction" and thereby cause disruption to the team? Absolutely yes. And therein, in my opinion, lies the "wrong" here, and it is that part which is drawing a "small to medium-sized reaction" from me. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 19:11:06
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
You both didn't answer my question.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Sorry Slozo, I thought the answer was so obvious that it didn't need answering.
The answer is yes. Based on the media hype behind it, all the stir that it caused, and the fact the Bruins had to release their own press release as well as each of Thomas team mates were questioned about it during all star week end, it absolutely was a big deal.
So that is your answer. If you want to discuss if it should or should not have been a big deal then that is matter of opinion that I doubt I would even want to get involved in. But the simple fact of the matter is that his actions did create a big deal. Rightly or wrongly, agree or disagree, it created a big deal. That is the reality of the situation.
I believe Thomas used the timing intentionally to use the invitation of his team to the White House to bring more light to his personal views. I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about that?? It is not what should or should not have happened. What did happen Slozo??
Now that I answered your question, please feel free to answer mine. Why did Thomas wait until the day prior of the event to make his post rather than make the post when he learned of the invitation??? |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 13:20:09
More like a brow beating into submission, but you are right. I give! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 12:30:56
Time to write this off to a difference of opinions!  |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 12:07:29
Wow, again, for someone who used the strawman accusation so, so many times, you sure aren't shy about using it when it bolsters your opinions, which by the way, I understood from your first post, and have spent a few subsequent posts of my own, restating that.
He made it a 'big deal', with content and timing, is all I am saying(actually, have been saying since the start, but will reiterate again), that drew attention to the Bruins, intended or not, it did, the facts are there, in the rebuttal statements Jacobs, Neely, and other team members were forced to make to distance themselves from Thomas' opinion.
That is my only concern for the whole thing, it took his right to free speech, which I agree with you on completely, and caused undue attention for his team and employer.
Not sure if I can make my opinion any clearer, and I am not asking for your approval on it, as it is my opinion.
Now take your boot off the back of my head, so I can get it out the sand, as it seems to be you're keeping it there any time I suggest a thought different than yours.....wait I've heard this song before!
|
| n/a |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 11:25:05
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by topcornermax
I think it was a big deal over nothing
Correct - I agree, that is.
And . . . who was it that made it such a big deal?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If this is the question you are referring to......yeah, I did......there's that ricochet sound again!
If you recall, I said he did, by making the specific announcement he did, when he did. The media reacted to that announcement, because of it's specifics. Had it been more of a general announcement without the specifics, there would been nothing to react to media-wise, speculate about things possibly, but HE gave the specifics to react to.
I see. The media only reacts as an independant thinking entity, never given to overreaction or politicking or influenc from government. . . riiiiight.
Keep yer head in the sand, dude!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 11:12:55
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by topcornermax
I think it was a big deal over nothing
Correct - I agree, that is.
And . . . who was it that made it such a big deal?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If this is the question you are referring to......yeah, I did......there's that ricochet sound again!
If you recall, I said he did, by making the specific announcement he did, when he did. The media reacted to that announcement, because of it's specifics. Had it been more of a general announcement without the specifics, there would been nothing to react to media-wise, speculate about things possibly, but HE gave the specifics to react to. |
| n/a |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 10:34:20
You both didn't answer my question.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 10:12:12
Here, here FER. I agree completely in all accounts. The timing as and has always been the issues.
As I stated before, there is no way in that Thomas or the Bruins did not learn about this invitation months in advance. So a very clear and simple question to you Slozo:
In your opinion, why did Tim Thomas release his statement within a day of the visit to the White House rather than release his statement at the time the invitation was received???
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 23:25:19
Geez, there's that ricochet sound again....the one I hear whenever someone misses the point.
No one is questioning his democratic right to say his piece, no one is questioning his political leanings, no one is questioning his right to use his personal Facebook page as his medium.
Some of us are just wondering about his timing, hence the 'big deal', of his own making.
I've stated before, why not a simple, cannot attend for personal reasons, to which, the only response was drivel, about the 'herd', reading too much in to that? Really? Who cares if the rednecks, or some rag paper hint he may be racist, who gives a rat's fart what some busybodies think about 'personal reasons'.
If that is the best argument for lauding his chosen time to voice his governmental displeasure, then the point has truly, truly been missed.
I, and it's only my opinion, will always wonder why he did it in such a way that drew all the attention to the team, forcing them to have to collectively and indivdually comment on an issue that wasn't, until Thomas made it so.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 21:03:15
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by topcornermax
I think it was a big deal over nothing
Correct - I agree, that is.
And . . . who was it that made it such a big deal?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If someone knows (or ought to know) that their actions will result in a "big deal" or at the very least create a little controversy (RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) and that someone chooses to go ahead with those actions anyway,
then, in my humble opinion Slozo-san,
that someone "made" the big deal.
And you agree - I'm really trying to get your honest opinion here - that a simple statement on someone's personal fb page, a day before not going along with the team to visit the president of the US for a cup champ tour / publicity op demands . . . a big deal reaction?
Seriously?
I questoin this society, sincerely I do. And I honestly can't understand the herd mentality that dictates someone not going for political reasons, stated quietly and simply, can honestly garner such a ridiculous overreaction.
That ain't no democracy, folks. It's a political public shaming.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4436 |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 16:44:25
If I`m not mistaken the Bruins have totally sucked since this happened. As they say there is no "I" in team..... |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 15:29:38
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by topcornermax
I think it was a big deal over nothing
Correct - I agree, that is.
And . . . who was it that made it such a big deal?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If someone knows (or ought to know) that their actions will result in a "big deal" or at the very least create a little controversy (RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) and that someone chooses to go ahead with those actions anyway,
then, in my humble opinion Slozo-san,
that someone "made" the big deal.
Bazinga!!!
Nicely stated. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 15:13:23
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by topcornermax
I think it was a big deal over nothing
Correct - I agree, that is.
And . . . who was it that made it such a big deal?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If someone knows (or ought to know) that their actions will result in a "big deal" or at the very least create a little controversy (RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) and that someone chooses to go ahead with those actions anyway,
then, in my humble opinion Slozo-san,
that someone "made" the big deal.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 11:02:24
quote:
Originally posted by topcornermax
I think it was a big deal over nothing
Correct - I agree, that is.
And . . . who was it that made it such a big deal?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| CrockOShight |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 08:29:42
At this time of writing, the Bruins are 3-5 since "the incident". Tim Thomas' sv % is around an earthly .900 over that span. And frankly, the Bruins aren't playing very well right now.
Maybe we shouldn't blame the recent slide on "the incident". But then again, maybe we should. One of the things that made the Bruins so strong was that they were so tight as a group. One cannot deny that they have not been "themselves" since "the incident".
I agree with Thomas' opinions for the most part; but I would still like to meet the President. I think that both - Thomas' opinion AND visiting the President - are a consistent message. I also think the Founding Fathers of the country would have been honoured to meet George III in the 1770s. It is possible to disagree with an institution; but then meet someone from that institution.
So, he used this as his soapbox. Well, great. We can all look forward to Thomas running for Congress in five years' time. And this is precisely why I believe Thomas will live to regret this decision. In his future political life, he will always be hounded by questions about this decision. It will become, not his crusade as he had hoped; but his legacy.
But, forget all of that for now; right now, he has to start playing better hockey.
|
| topcornermax |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 13:28:28
I think it was a big deal over nothing |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 02/09/2012 : 19:00:33
Thomas should probably stop tea-bagging in public. |
| Shepsky |
Posted - 02/09/2012 : 18:51:54
Perhaps the Bruins brass want to trade Thomas because they have another great goalie coming up, ready to be a starter, it would be dumb to trade him before the end of the season, see what happens in the playoffs, then definitely trade him, while he is still worth something, any 36 year old goalie doesn't have a lot of time left in this league. Perhaps that is why trade talks are buzzing, also because a lot of hockey fans will believe ANYTHING they hear or read. Perhaps it has nothing to do with his political beliefs, because I'm sure the team is tired of hearing anything about this, as even I am, and I started this thread. |
| Guest2753 |
Posted - 02/09/2012 : 14:30:56
who cares what he says about his personal opinions of the every day world. rumors that the bruins want to trade him a insane. you dont trade your stanley cup winning goalie because of his religion and his non desire to visit the white house. he could be bin laden brother and the bruins would keep him. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 02/09/2012 : 14:17:55
I hate to keep this thread going, but I'm going to pass along a comment made by one of the talking heads on TSN last night.
I can't remember who said it, but the comment was made that the Bruins have now gone 2 and 4 (2 wins, 4 losses) in the six games since Tim Thomas made his statement about not attending the White House. And last night's game was a 6-0 trouncing by the Buffalo Sabres, who despite losing some of the physical battles, won where it counted – on the scoreboard.
Personally, I don't think the Bruins mini-slump has anything to do with Tim Thomas' comments, but I can understand the merit of someone who does. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 17:26:26
Oh, sorry. I thought this was a Sam Gagner thread. Well, while I'm here, I don't understand how Thomas could have timed his explanation any better. When he accepted the Conn Smythe was he thinking, "Oh crap! Better let everyone know why I won't be going to the Whitehouse"?
I think the longer the interim period prior to the team's visit, the more controversy would have ensued, and the longer it would have lingered. One day before, or one day after doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot.
He refused to attend in order to make a statement. This wouldn't have mattered if he didn't actually make the statement. Right or wrong, he made his statement. His timing could not have been better.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 12:30:31
A quick google search of "athlete's who've turned down white house" came up with several sites with info. Here's a couple paragraphs from one of the many:
Not every athlete is so enamored with the tradition of meeting the head of state. Oftentimes, it is simply a matter of the forces of sports’ black and blue colliding with politics’ red and blue. In September, four different NASCAR drivers cited “scheduling conflicts” as the reason they decided not to make the trek north. I believe that as much as I believe that Honest Abe just winked at me from the five-dollar bill sitting in my wallet (i.e. a sportswriter’s salary).
Former Green Bay Packers tight end Mark Chmura declined to meet Bill Clinton in 1997 because of a golf tournament. Give their respective marital records, perhaps it was for the best. Manny Ramirez skipped out on George W. Bush in 2007. Larry Bird and Michael Jordan both decided to sit out a visit, though they might have simply been tired of making the trip. To show he was not playing any favorites, Steelers linebacker James Harrison turned down a 2006 invitation from Bush, then did the same thing in 2009 under the Obama administration.
I love the reason he gives that Bird and Jordan might have used for skipping out! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 12:24:18
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5744
quote:
Originally posted by alex116
TT isn't the first athlete to refuse an invitation to the White House
just curious if you know any others since you didn't really elaborate...
Sorry, i don't, and i was only reiterating what guest1451 had said, so maybe he/she knows? I have def heard that there have been others in the past so i know it's true, i just don't know who? |
| Guest5744 |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 11:30:34
quote:
Originally posted by alex116
TT isn't the first athlete to refuse an invitation to the White House
just curious if you know any others since you didn't really elaborate... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 10:31:05
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Guest1451
Wow, I thought it sucked listening to Americans complain about Tim Thomas exercising his right to refuse an invitation, turns out it sucks even more to hear a Canadians do it. Not even close to the first athlete to refuse an invitation to the White House. How about letting it go and admitting that you are not Tim Thomas and you have no right to make decisions for him?
How about you read what most are complaining about, then rethink your post. Most are not upset at him not going, it's that in their opinion(s), he used a team event to express his thoughts on gov't / political matters.
How about you not assume that the poster is ignorant?
Slozo, it appears you too need to read things better. I was not implying or assuming that the poster was "ignorant".
He (i will assume it's a male) made a comparison between Canadians and Americans that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, made a statement that TT isn't the first athlete to refuse an invitation to the White House, also nothing to do with the topic at hand, AND, implied that we were claiming to have the right to make decsions for TT. If you and he, can't see how far off of what we've been debating that is, then i'm wasting my time. But all i asked was for him to go back, re-read our posts and rethink his comments. Sorry, but they were just way off of what this entire discussion's been about!!!
FER, thank you for your post, I think you pretty much summed up what i would have struggled to say.
As far as how should Tim Thomas have explained his reasoning for not going to the White House? Maybe, just maybe, he should have put his political thoughts and feelings aside and attended, OR, expect the repercussions that come with his decision! Besides, this wasn't a political event, it was a celebratory TEAM event!!!
I'm not big on politics and should prob steer clear of these debates, but it wasn't to do with his political view that i had issues with, but the timing with which he chose to express them.
If anyone doesn't understand this, so be it. I think everyone who agrees with me is prob as frustrated as i am trying to explaing it. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 10:20:21
Hey Slozo, your repeated questions have been answered every time. If you choose not to listen or agree, that is fine. However, the cricket comment is off-side in my opinion.
I understand your point that Tomas did not use an NHL or Bruins vehicle to make this statements. My point, which has been the same from the start, is based on the timing. He did not bring his issues to light ahead of time or afterwards. He did it a day before the visit to the White House.
That has been and remains my only issue. It's not like the Bruins were invited to the White House 2 days before the visit. Tim Thomas likely knew he was not going to the White House well before he made his statement. Why wait until the day on the visit to make the statement?? The only logical reason is to bring more visability to your cause. That and only that makes this a soapbox with a Bruins logo on it. And no one can aruge that this situation(which also happened a few days before the All Star break) created a media frenzy and put Thomas, the Bruins, and all his team mates under undue media pressure.
I love the statement he made. I agree with his thoughts. I completely respect his right to not attend the visit to the White House. The issue I have and always have had is the timing. His statement is below, and if this message is sent before the season starts then I have no issues at all.
“I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.” |
|
|
