| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Shepsky
Rookie
Canada
211 Posts |
 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"
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 06:10:40
|
| maybee tim thomas was afraid of the little red sniper dot that follows obama.. JK i know i know horrible joke but i have a horrible sence of humor...... |
 |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 06:56:15
|
Shepsky......I've heard this discussed quite a bit the past few days and i'm not at all a big politics guy but at first i agreed, "who cares"? However, it seems it wasn't just his decision to pass up the opportunity, it was the fact that he used the opportunity as a platform to not only spread his views, but to talk negative of the current US Govt, all while his team mates were taking the opportunity to meet the Pres and visit the White House.
Also very interesting, is that it's considered a "team function" and the team actually could suspend him for not going. Not at all surprising that Chiarelli isn't going to do so. (That is not a snide remark either, i would think any team suspending their player over something like that would be going to extremes).
I also heard, and this may be a total rumour, that he waited till the last minute (day) to announce that he wasn't going and did so on twitter or facebook or something like that? Maybe someone who's paid more attention could confirm or deny this part?
Like i mentioned, i think it has more to do with the way he went about making his decsion and announcing it, than the actual decision itself. Had he simply declined, told the team, and stayed home and kept his mouth shut, it'd have been swept under the rug and everyone would have moved on. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 09:27:12
|
Politics and political opinions in the US are much more polarizing than they are in Canada. There are huge and bitter divisions between Republicans and Democrats, and anytime extreme views (one way or the other) are thrust into the limelight, it is news. Thomas's move, and the way he publicly justified his move, was bound to draw fire.
That being said, I do think it would be somewhat of a big deal here as well. Personal like or dislike of Harper aside, I like to think that most people here would not be disrespectful in that way, and would not use an otherwise fun and un-political and traditional meeting to promote a political agenda. Doing so would probably raise a few eyebrows in Canada and get you roasted on the next Coach's Corner. |
|
|
|
Guest8850
( )
|
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 14:02:39
|
Good for Timmy i say,
FREEDOM OF SPEECH is his right and if thats how he feels than thats all good. Not to mention I seen a poll that said 51 percent of Americans agreed with him. And he is one of if not the only American on the team.
I think the real problem is how they are trying to turn people against him. If a proven Champion cant express his views who can. He says Obama is doing a crap job(not exactly in those words). So what do they do, start saying he is KKK cause his 3 children have names starting with a K. So what it was said indirectly it was still said. Doesn't Kimbo Slice have 3 kids each named with K. He must be KKK as well. Sounds like more American Propaganda bulls*** to me. |
|
|
|
spade632
Rookie
Canada
247 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 14:03:07
|
Two things I've read about Tim Thomas skipping the White House visit.
1) Apparently, the Bruins organization knew about it for MONTHS and Chiarelli tried to convince Thomas to come. Ultimately, Thomas skipped the event.
2) As far as a political stand goes -
quote:
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.
This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT
It's important to note that he specifically says that it's not about party and that BOTH are (in Thomas' eyes) responsible for the inchecked growth of government.
I don't see any issue with him having a political opinion / stance on various issues but in order to minimize the "flack" from it the Bruins could have issued a statement along the lines of "Regretfully, Tim Thomas will not be attending the White House reception because in order to attend to a personal matter." Then again, that's almost like he's hiding from the issue.
I think the media has blown the whole thing way out of proportion.
On a "brighter" polticial note - I find it pretty rich that Newt Gingrich (on his third wife - having cheated on BOTH of his previous wives, not to mention divorcing them after they were diagnosed with Cancer and MS, respectively) who supported impeaching Bill Clinton for HIS extra-marital affairs (Monica Lewinsky et al) acted all shocked and appalled that someone would have the audactiy to ASK him him about his own affairs..  |
Edited by - spade632 on 01/26/2012 14:03:56 |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 14:28:39
|
It's very simple for me. It's all about freedom to do what you want, and about freedom to say what you want.
Tim Thomas is free to do what he wants, and people are free to express their opinions as they wish.
Personally, I think he's grandstanding (which is his right), and his move was classless. Can you imagine a previous big name player not showing up at the White House in the same manner?
What's Tim Thomas's next move? Skip out on the American anthem because he doesn't like his president?
But once again, he's within his rights to skip the White House visit (unless his employer wanted him to be there), and people are fully within their rights to criticize (or commend) him for his position.
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 15:03:28
|
Unfortunately, IMO only, not enough is being considered, when this was a 'team, organization' event, and I'm not sure about where others work, but if I used an event involving the organization I work for, as a soapbox for my own personal views, there would be negative repercussions, free speech aside.
Many of us adhere to identified business conduct guidelines, in order to receive our renumeration for services, and this is another example of a pampered 'celebrity', getting away with what a lot of the rest of us can't, and shouldn't.
Political views, religious views, sexual preference views, etc., are all fine and dandy when the opportunity to present said views is appropriate, and is indeed a right involving free speech, but not when you are making those views under the guise of a member of an organization. As an individual? Certainly, but not in this circumstance, again, IMO only.
I think Thomas put his club in a very precarious position and hand cuffed them to have to take stance they did, as the backlash to their doing anything disciplinary to him, would have caused an even bigger outcry. All in all, a strange move from someone who isn't a politician, this is right up their alley!  |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 15:10:01
|
| Putting my moderator hat on for second, politics is something that is very sensitive in nature and often incites very aggressive opinions. With that said, please be very careful with posts about political opinions. This forum (or site for that matter) is not the vehicle to communicate that message. This site is about hockey so keep it about hockey. This should be about Tim Thomas, his conduct(not his opinion), and what your thoughts are regarding the impact to his organization and/or position in the game. If this thread sways off track and gets into political views it will have to be locked. |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 16:09:44
|
| He has republican party s*** on the back of his helmet.Im not really a fan of teabagging,we can judge him for thinking obama is a socialist |
|
|
|
spade632
Rookie
Canada
247 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 16:42:55
|
Beans - Indeed, it's good to keep things civil, level-headed, and germane to the topic at hand (hockey).
Sahis > The back of Thomas' helmet > Image here > http://stkarnick.com/culture/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Bruins-helmet_back2010timthomas.jpg
depicts the "Gadsen rattlesnake" / "Gadsen flag" that was first carried into battle by the United States Marine Corps during the American Revoultion / War of Independence.
Contemporarily, it's often used as a symbol of American patriotism (of the founding fathers) and as a token of fisagreement with government though it has been often used at Tea Party rallies and events. Strictly speaking though, it isn't a "Republican" symbol in that it doesn't officially represent the party in any way (to my knowledge anyways).
As I alluded to in my earlier post, Thomas has every right to refuse to attend BUT I think the fact that he made a post about it serves to take away the focus from what should have been a non-politicized event - and, speaking of - Obama calling Marchand the "little ball of hate semi-rankled... there's only one "little ball of hate and his name is Pat Verbeek! :P
(I plead insanity - I'm a historian!  ) |
Edited by - spade632 on 01/26/2012 16:44:13 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 16:56:41
|
I don't think the Bruins should have covered for him (lied) and said he couldn't make it for some reason. That's just wrong really. Like i said before, i don't have a huge problem with him skipping it, aside from the whole "team / team function" issue, but i don't like him using his position as an athlete, an idol to many kids, etc as a platform to give his political opinions. I don't care if it's not "party related", it's still the Gov't of the USA. If i had a kid who idolized him, would i really want him to be influencing him in this regard? NO! He should understand his position and the influence he can have on others, especially children, and stick to "say no to drugs" kinds of messages!  |
|
|
|
Shepsky
Rookie
Canada
211 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 17:20:36
|
| Okay, I would have to agree with Alex, I didn't realize he was posting about it all over social media. I guess the best route would have been for timmy just to say 'I'm not going, that's it" |
|
|
|
spade632
Rookie
Canada
247 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 18:17:00
|
To be fair, Thomas made one statement about on his Facebook. As far as I know, any other time he's mentioned it since it's been to answer media questions.
Alex - I don't think the Bruins should have "lied" to cover him either. If Thomas hadn't posted what he did and the Bruins had said "personal reasons" or something there would be zero issue / controversy but you can't go on ifs and buts.
|
Edited by - spade632 on 01/26/2012 18:20:30 |
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 18:28:24
|
I guess for an amercian player, on an amercian based team, snubbing the white house is a pretty big deal down there.
It was a team event and as Elvis stated, we all don`t agree with every company policy...but you TRY to keep peace.
He definitely cause a lot of grief within the organization and for sure maybe some tension in their dressing room. If every1 brought their personal beliefs to WORK and lived by them at WORK and wouldn`t budge...well i sure would not want to work there. |
|
|
|
Guest7961
( )
|
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 03:59:07
|
| i say here here jolly good what? |
|
|
|
Shepsky
Rookie
Canada
211 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 05:38:19
|
| I do give credit to Thomas at the fantasy draft, when asked about the whole event he just said that even when he first said it, it would be the only time he talks of it, and didn't talk about it anymore, I think he just wants to forget about it. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 05:49:31
|
I guess I shouldn't be shocked at what a ridiculously big deal is made when someone exercises their right to free THOUGHT, but still . . . I am even surprised at some of the posters on this site piling on Thomas.
From what I have seen, Thomas only gave a short blurb on his FB page to EXPLAIN why he wasn't going to visit the president with the team. He did not go on a pulpit and go on and on about this or that politics (like some of you have chosen to do here); he did not make any grandious statements, and frankly, didn't even say anything remotely offensive towards the president or his administration; and he chose to mostly keep quiet and only respond to questions from the media/fans.
And still, as beautifully and respectfully as he could manage it when deciding to be true to his values/beliefs . . . he is chastised for it? Seriously?
Two thumbs up to Thomas from me. Has NOTHING to do with politics for me, has everything to do with character and class.
And for the naysayers . . . if you can give me ANY SHRED of proof on how Thomas was "preaching from a bull pulpit about his politics", I'd love to see it. PROOF, that is.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 09:39:40
|
And yet, a simple, 'not attending for personal reasons', couldn't suffice?
As soon as he expanded on his reasons, he opened this can of worms. I truly believe he put himself ahead of his club and teammates as soon as he brought any political stand in to the mix. Had he simply waited until a more appropriate time to voice his reasoning, it wouldn't have detracted from the experience for those who didn't want this frivolous, congratulatory event to become a media debate.
To me it has less to do with 'pulpit preaching' or grandiose statements, and more to do with being a Boston Bruin. This was after all a team/club function.
I don't question his character or class in any way, I only wonder why he chose to not take a much simpler, non-inflammatory route. This was a traditional event, not a political one, until he made it so.
He may have only made one statement on his Facebook, but yet it doesn't dissuade the fact he made a political statement,
I'll throw a question back at you, had the Bruins disciplined him for not taking part in this team event, would they be justified? He would have been there as a member of the Boston Bruins, not as a disgruntled American, and therefore should have fulfilled an obligation to the organization that employs him, IMO.
I also stated that we all have accountability back to our employers, and at times, have to swallow our opinions when they differ from those employers, in this case he left his employer flapping in the wind, forcing them to have to verbalize their stance on an issue that never should been raised.
I laud his opinions, as he didn't take a side and push anyone's agenda, but, this was not the appropriate time, IMO.
Classier would have been to state personal reasons for not attending, and upon retirement, when you have no immediate ties to the Bruins and your teammates, state his reasoning then. Just my thought. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 10:33:50
|
I gotta agree with FER on this one but also agree with Slozo to a certain degree. I completely agree that this does not really have anything to do with politics or someone's political view. Republican/Democrat, Obama/Anti-Obama, Liberal/Conservative has nothing to do with it. His comments could have just as easily been about abortion, or AIDS, or his desire to Free Tibet. The point is he used an invitation to his team to raise a personal view.
It would have been completely different if he was invited individually as a guest to the White House. At that point, his opinions are his and only his. But when he is invited as a member of the Boston Bruins and he uses the opportunity to bring his personal views into the matter it indirectly impacts the Bruins.
As FER stated, a simple "not attending due to personal reasons," would have been more than appropriate. I am not even questioning him not going. I don't think that matters if he went to the White House or not. What does matter is his personal views being advertised and using the activities of his team to bring more light to his cause. If you, me, or any other Joe Public used a company activity to bring awareness to a personal cause without permission we would be fired.
That is the issue.
ON a side note, good on Obama for even know about the little ball of hate and for picking on Boston for winning titles in each major sport in recent history. It is far better than Clinton(or was it Bush) not knowing how to say Steve Yzerman. That was a joke. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 16:58:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
And yet, a simple, 'not attending for personal reasons', couldn't suffice?
As soon as he expanded on his reasons, he opened this can of worms. I truly believe he put himself ahead of his club and teammates as soon as he brought any political stand in to the mix. Had he simply waited until a more appropriate time to voice his reasoning, it wouldn't have detracted from the experience for those who didn't want this frivolous, congratulatory event to become a media debate.
To me it has less to do with 'pulpit preaching' or grandiose statements, and more to do with being a Boston Bruin. This was after all a team/club function.
I don't question his character or class in any way, I only wonder why he chose to not take a much simpler, non-inflammatory route. This was a traditional event, not a political one, until he made it so.
He may have only made one statement on his Facebook, but yet it doesn't dissuade the fact he made a political statement,
I'll throw a question back at you, had the Bruins disciplined him for not taking part in this team event, would they be justified? He would have been there as a member of the Boston Bruins, not as a disgruntled American, and therefore should have fulfilled an obligation to the organization that employs him, IMO.
I also stated that we all have accountability back to our employers, and at times, have to swallow our opinions when they differ from those employers, in this case he left his employer flapping in the wind, forcing them to have to verbalize their stance on an issue that never should been raised.
I laud his opinions, as he didn't take a side and push anyone's agenda, but, this was not the appropriate time, IMO.
Classier would have been to state personal reasons for not attending, and upon retirement, when you have no immediate ties to the Bruins and your teammates, state his reasoning then. Just my thought.
Telling the truth in an understated and respectful way on a decision is never opening a can of worms, unless you live in a society that isn't really free, or democratic.
If Thomas had said what you wanted him to . . . how many people read into that as some kind of race thing? I am being serious here, and not trying to open any can of worms, but . . . I find his answer the most dimplomatic thing I can possibly think of in terms of not going for political reasons. I can 100% understand him not wanting to potentially be thought of as a true-blue staunch republican, bigot, or just a hater of democrats, because his statement was too vague. And you know they would have jumped all over an even more ambiguous statement, even more than they are doing now for something like this.
No, this was a simple, straight-forward backlash for exercising free speech. Free speech against the rulers that be. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 16:58:30
|
And to answer your question Fat Elvis,
No, I think if the Bruins had suspended him or levied a fine? Fair enough, well within their rights, and that is within the rules of conduct in the league.
But they never would have done that, of course - would have automatically given more support to Thomas for exercising free speech. |
Edited by - n/a on 01/27/2012 17:01:49 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 17:04:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I gotta agree with FER on this one but also agree with Slozo to a certain degree. I completely agree that this does not really have anything to do with politics or someone's political view. Republican/Democrat, Obama/Anti-Obama, Liberal/Conservative has nothing to do with it. His comments could have just as easily been about abortion, or AIDS, or his desire to Free Tibet. The point is he used an invitation to his team to raise a personal view.
It would have been completely different if he was invited individually as a guest to the White House. At that point, his opinions are his and only his. But when he is invited as a member of the Boston Bruins and he uses the opportunity to bring his personal views into the matter it indirectly impacts the Bruins.
As FER stated, a simple "not attending due to personal reasons," would have been more than appropriate. I am not even questioning him not going. I don't think that matters if he went to the White House or not. What does matter is his personal views being advertised and using the activities of his team to bring more light to his cause. If you, me, or any other Joe Public used a company activity to bring awareness to a personal cause without permission we would be fired.
That is the issue.
ON a side note, good on Obama for even know about the little ball of hate and for picking on Boston for winning titles in each major sport in recent history. It is far better than Clinton(or was it Bush) not knowing how to say Steve Yzerman. That was a joke.
The president knows absolutely nothing about hockey, get real Beans. He just has better advisors more able to research things to a slightly better degree than Bush's advisers/press agents.
Pat Verbeek was totally disrespected here IMHO
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 18:51:59
|
I hear ya Slozo, and I do agree, I just feel a little disenchanted. I guess, I love Tim Thomas and his whole semi-underdog story, his compete level, and his personality. That's what makes it difficult for me to understand why he made this decision.
It was a non-partisan event to celebrate the success of the Boston Bruins, on behalf of the nation, is all I'm getting at, and free speech or not, it just seems a little self-serving for him to voice his, understandable, overall, governmental disappointment, adding political element to an event that isn't, after all, it's a yearly tradition, regardless of governing party.
I feel either attending, and making a statement afterwards, about how he was there as part of the Boston Bruins but disagrees with big government, or as I mentioned, the obligatory, 'unable to attend for personal reasons', which, although speculative, at least shows the proper decorum, to allow his teammates, who some, I'm sure, consider the event an honor, even though none of them are American, to enjoy such an event.
I do agree he has no reason to not exercise his right to free speech, I just wonder about the timing, from all reports, he had his mind made up for some time prior, and in my opinion, could have used that time to respond to the invitation personally, possibly even with the ear of the president, but instead, chose the bane of our society and privacy, Facebook, to ensure his lack of desire to attend became more public, seems kind of contrived, but that may only be me. |
|
|
|
2ForInstigating
Top Prospect
13 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2012 : 10:56:32
|
Local radio was chirpin Thomas about the whole scene, saying there's no place in hockey for politics.
I agree, from the other side of the coin.
What does the president have to do with Hockey? Why doesn't he do his job, be the president, and leave the hockey players alone to do their jobs? It should have been expected that there would be a clash of opinions and no one should be forced to bite their tongue, and begrudgingly jump through hoops.
would it not be worse for Thomas to go, feeling like crap all day, and lying through his teeth to the president? He shouldn't have been put into that position.
How much heart would he have for a team that forced him to do that, or punished him for not going?
Its the president and the white house. If you aren't already happy to go, there's gonna be a lot of pressure from every angle, that will make the situation a disaster, no matter how it was handled.
Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. And Im sure that was the polite version of his opinions, as it were...
Politics and Religion are said to be things you don't talk about. It saves all the bickering over different views.
He just wants to play hockey... |
|
|
|
Guest4306
( )
|
Posted - 01/29/2012 : 16:09:21
|
I suppose this will come off as a political comment (or identifying my own political leanings), but boycotting a White House visit makes sense now?
What about when either of the Bush's were president? They led their country into two very controversial wars. I'm sure a number of players were not too excited about shaking George Bush's hand? Some being US citizens, but a number of Canadian players too. And what about players of European descent? Generally speaking, they aren't usually overly supportive of US foreign policy, but many earn their living on US soil. I'm sure most of them just bit their tongue, and kept their political beliefs to themselves. Are they hypocrites?
And on a lighter note, how did the players feel shaking Bill Clinton's hand when he welcomed the Stanley Cup Champs to the White House? He was impeached for lying
about a sexual indiscretion, and what NHL player would want to appear supporting a
president with that on his record? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2012 : 18:50:31
|
Here the thing, Tim Thomas climbed up on his soapbox and spouted off his thoughts. Totally within his rights to do so and if you agree or disagree is completely irrelevant. However, that soapbox he climbed up on had a Bruins logo on the side of it. Like it or not, his actions do have an impact to the organization he is with. If you don't see that, get out of your idealistic world and join the rest of us.
Tim Thomas should have and could have simply declined the invitation and said nothing publically about it. If he wanted to explain he actions once he was no longer a member of a hockey team, great. Then, and only then would his view not have an impact on the organization.
Just because we have the rights does not mean there isn't an impact from exercising those right. He made comments and exercised his rights as an individual and did so using the invitaiton and of the team he is a part of. In my opinion, I disagee with his decision to use his team for his own personal exploits. |
|
|
|
Guest1451
( )
|
Posted - 01/29/2012 : 21:12:23
|
| No Beans, it's people like you and the media that have put the Bruins logo on this whole thing. He has repeatedly said that it had nothing to do with hockey, nothing to do with the Bruins, and everything to do with Tim Thomas the person. He is nowhere near the first athlete to decline an invitation to the White House and an invitation by definition can be either accepted or declined. It's possible that I am biased in that I completely agree with everything he said but I would maintain his right of refusal even if he had made no comment as to why he didn't want to go. It is the media and the Bruins organization who have handled this badly, not Tim Thomas. I don't have to explain in the media every time I refuse an invitation, do you? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2012 : 22:26:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest1451
No Beans, it's people like you and the media that have put the Bruins logo on this whole thing. He has repeatedly said that it had nothing to do with hockey, nothing to do with the Bruins, and everything to do with Tim Thomas the person. He is nowhere near the first athlete to decline an invitation to the White House and an invitation by definition can be either accepted or declined. It's possible that I am biased in that I completely agree with everything he said but I would maintain his right of refusal even if he had made no comment as to why he didn't want to go. It is the media and the Bruins organization who have handled this badly, not Tim Thomas. I don't have to explain in the media every time I refuse an invitation, do you?
Really? Really?
Ok, answer me this:
If this is all about Tim Thomas and his thoughts and opinions then why did he wait until an event involving the Bruins to voice his thoughts? Why wait until the day prior to the rest of his team was visiting the White House to make a statement against the government that operates from th location his team would be visiting?
The media did not make the statements, Thomas did. And the timing o his statements are the issue, not what he said. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2012 : 04:44:02
|
Well, that's a shame that you feel Thomas didn't time his right to free speech properly, to your standards, Beans. His right to dimplomatically, and in a mot understated way, to inform the fans of the Bruins and NHL why he wasn't making the trip to the white house, that is.
If he had made the statement a week before, would that have satisfied you Beans? Or would that have been trumpeted as grandstanding?
If Thomas had kept mum on why he didn't go . . . would that have been seen as pompous? Ignorant? Rude? Interpreted as some more sinister reason why he didn't want to go?
And Beans, I'll repeat the question I openly asked all else here (the detractors of what Thomas did):
WHERE IS THE SOAPBOX?
Please specifically point to where Thomas did ANYTHING other than a service announcement to his fans.
He even did it only on his OWN PERSONAL FB PAGE, folks!!! That was his best idea at removing it from the NHL arena, while informing the fans of his decision, so they wouldn't wonder.
What the heck was wrong with that, I ask?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest7961
( )
|
Posted - 01/30/2012 : 11:10:31
|
| the vain man is a closet communist |
|
|
|
foolpittier
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
374 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2012 : 12:30:38
|
| he should have just called in sick. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2012 : 18:55:43
|
| Slozo, I am not going to re-state what I have already stated three times in regards to what I believe to be appropriate. Everyone one has choices they can make and they have the right to make those choices in North America. Regardless of the actions of a person being their right or not, there are repercussion for every action. The security of rights and freedoms is that people can exercise those rights without persecution. However, persecution and repercussion are not one and the same. He will not be persecuted for his actions however the repercussion of his actions are that some may not agree with his choice. I am one of those people who disagree and I have the right to do so. I have the right to free thought. My free thinking is that Tim Thomas used a Boston Bruins event to make her personal views public. I believe that action to be selfish and ethically incorrect. You can disagree with that statement. You have that right. |
|
|
|
Guest4227
( )
|
Posted - 01/30/2012 : 19:15:18
|
| I agree beans you have the right to disagree and voice your opinion. In my opinion Mario Lemieux is the greatest hockey player that ever lived. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2012 : 04:29:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Slozo, I am not going to re-state what I have already stated three times in regards to what I believe to be appropriate. Everyone one has choices they can make and they have the right to make those choices in North America. Regardless of the actions of a person being their right or not, there are repercussion for every action. The security of rights and freedoms is that people can exercise those rights without persecution. However, persecution and repercussion are not one and the same. He will not be persecuted for his actions however the repercussion of his actions are that some may not agree with his choice. I am one of those people who disagree and I have the right to do so. I have the right to free thought. My free thinking is that Tim Thomas used a Boston Bruins event to make her personal views public. I believe that action to be selfish and ethically incorrect. You can disagree with that statement. You have that right.
So if Tim Thomas really didn't want to go to this "Boston Bruins event", Beans, and it was because of a strong personal conviction . . . how exactly should he have gone about it?
Do you realise that even with Thomas' simple and understated explanation, the Montreal Gazette (which should be used as toilet paper as far as I am concerned) had the temerity to publish a piece that stated he didn't go because Obama was black? I'm serious!
My point is, without some published qualifying statement to his fans and to fans of the NHL . . . it would have been much worse for the NHL. I mean, even if you love Obama politically, at least you can now hear that Thomas had a good reason for not going, so you think, ok, fair enough.
I still don't see evidence of a soapbox.
Waiting. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2012 : 04:37:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And Beans, I'll repeat the question I openly asked all else here (the detractors of what Thomas did):
WHERE IS THE SOAPBOX?
Please specifically point to where Thomas did ANYTHING other than a service announcement to his fans.
He even did it only on his OWN PERSONAL FB PAGE, folks!!! That was his best idea at removing it from the NHL arena, while informing the fans of his decision, so they wouldn't wonder.
What the heck was wrong with that, I ask?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
In my opinion not a whole lot is wrong with that Slozo. And the answer to the question of this thread is also "Not a whole lot."
BUT, I also think it simply wasn't necessary. This is what bugs me as a Bruin fan (albeit a retired Bruins fan , in large part thanks to Timmy of course). To me it's not, as Beans says, that he "used a Bruin event to make his personal views public" that is the problem here. In my view, the problem, though not a huge one I admit, is that he created a bigger news media story/distraction (that he ought to have known would happen) by expressing his views in this way.
I am all for freedom of speech, but be smart about it and be aware of the various obligations that are on the other side of the coin (i.e. the obligation to keep a certain harmony with the team - yes, Japan has affected me I guess; the obligation to do what your boss wants you to do; etc.)
Would it have been so hard for him to go, joke around with his teammates for a fairly short time, and then to express his views quietly on facebook or elsewhere? Even in an interview, say something like,
"Yeah, I went to the White House because it was yet another celbration of our great accomplishment, and that is fun and I wanted to be with them for that, but I have to say that I think the government is out of control..." (FIRE AWAY all you want here TIMMY!)
My point is that he didn't need to do it this way. It was a more disruptive and actually less effective way of dealing with it than it would have been had he gone and then made his statement.
Hard for me to bash Timmy. Aside from being ETERNALLY grateful to him (I have my two year old kid say "Thank You" to the S.I. cover with Timmy holding the Cup every day), I like his interviews very much and find him a very interesting story like FER.
But I'd be lying if I were to say that I wasn't a bit disappointed in the way he handled this one. |
Edited by - andyhack on 01/31/2012 04:44:09 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2012 : 05:30:33
|
If you don’t agree with my opinion that Tim Thomas, as a member of the Boston Bruins, used a team event to amplify his personal thoughts then so be it. But that is the soapbox. I don't understand why that opinion is so difficult to understand?
To reiterate Andyhack’s comments, I also didn’t like the way he handled this situation. It was a distraction to his team and I don’t think anyone can argue that. TT can have any opinion he wants and state them in what ever fashion he feels is reasonable. But there are repercussions. In this case, one of the repercussions is an unnecessary distraction to his team. Another is to have people applaud him for his action. Another is for people to disagee with his action. Bottom line, none of those repercussions are right or wrong. It’s another freedom that we have in North America: the right to free thought.
|
|
|
|
Guest5744
( )
|
Posted - 01/31/2012 : 06:10:14
|
| i think the bruins fielded the offers over all-star weekend and didn't get what they were looking for. They swept the the rumours under the rug nicely efficiently and this is the last we will hear of this. |
|
|
|
ToXXiK1
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
696 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2012 : 07:02:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Here the thing, Tim Thomas climbed up on his soapbox and spouted off his thoughts. Totally within his rights to do so and if you agree or disagree is completely irrelevant. However, that soapbox he climbed up on had a Bruins logo on the side of it. Like it or not, his actions do have an impact to the organization he is with. If you don't see that, get out of your idealistic world and join the rest of us.
Tim Thomas should have and could have simply declined the invitation and said nothing publically about it. If he wanted to explain he actions once he was no longer a member of a hockey team, great. Then, and only then would his view not have an impact on the organization.
Just because we have the rights does not mean there isn't an impact from exercising those right. He made comments and exercised his rights as an individual and did so using the invitaiton and of the team he is a part of. In my opinion, I disagee with his decision to use his team for his own personal exploits.
Thomas would have said nothing if no one asked him about it.... |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2012 : 07:58:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by ToXXiK1
Thomas would have said nothing if no one asked him about it....
Tox, no offense, but that's no different than someone saying "No one would have asked him about it, if he'd gone"!
I couldn't agree more with the thinking that he used a team even to express his thoughts on the Gov't of the USA. Simple as that, and i don't think it was the correct thing to do. No, he didn't break any laws or anything, but how could anyone not expect some sort of reaction for media, fans, detractors, etc?
What would he have done if the league decided Obama was gonna be the one to award the Conn Smythe? Would he not have taken it? |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 01/31/2012 : 10:44:03
|
Politics and sports don't mix too well.
I wonder what Tim Thomas's teammates think about his actions? There are 17 Canadians (socialists?) on the Bruins roster, along with 4 European players, and only 3 U.S.-born players, including Thomas.
I'm sure they're sticking by their teammate publicly, but I suspect a few of them have separate private thoughts on his actions.
I remember hearing a story about the Quebec referendum which took place in 1995. The story goes that when the results of the referendum were released, that half the crowd applauded and half the crowd booed. And that people who sat together for years now knew something about the people who sat around them, that they wouldn't have otherwise known.
I'm not sure about the validity of this story because the Habs did not have a home game on the night the referendum took place, but perhaps the official results of the referendum were announced later? Remember -– it was a very close referendum, with 50.52% voting "no" to separate, as opposed to 49.42% who voted that Quebec should become a sovereign nation.
In either regard, it's another reminder that politics and sports should be kept separate. Hard to do sometimes, but does anyone really think that a hockey team's visit to the White House shows individual player's support for the standing president? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is the Tim Thomas thing a big deal?? 
