OT - Tim Thomas takes a stand.....

[Randall Flagg]

Why do people think that stating a similarity in the way a leader is viewed based on just being elected is equal to the things he has done in office? Just because someone compares the two doesn't mean he thinks Obamas policies and actions are as bad as Hitlers genocide. No one here thinks that.

[LaFontaineToMogilny]

In retrospect, maybe the calls for cutting this ###### out makes more sense

[TheChimp]

Thank for respecting your fellow man. You're an outstanding citizen

You show more disrespect in one day of posting than I display in a week, so knock it off. And if anglo or hispano or chicano aren't banned then why is ne gro? What's the proper term?

[Weave]

I believe it's 2012. To ask how one would act almost 100 years ago it reaching. You want to make a comparison then make a comparison using a US figure. I'm sorry but I will not be baited.

 

Well, I'm going to guess here but my money is on you have only been alive for 4 presidents. You aren't going to see the point in any example I could give. I didn't think it was a subtle point. You win by default.

[TrueBlueGED]

Wow, this thread is incredible. I can't believe it's still open, and I also can't believe some of the gross inaccuracies being thrown around. With all due respect to Tim Thomas, he is incorrect that the Founding Fathers believed in a very limited government (in the libertarian sense, which he clearly appears to be). The fact of the matter is that so much language in the Constitution is ambiguous for a reason: it's the only way they got the thing to get ratified. Many of the Founders disagreed among themselves over exactly what powers the federal government should have. That's part of the reason two parties emerged (not surprisingly, one of them known as the Federalists...).

 

Secondly, I've seen some insinuate that the biggest problem with the American public is lack of information, and that if they were somehow informed then political outcomes would be "better." Well I'd hate to disappoint, but voters regularly behave as if they are fully informed even when they are not. Americans are able to use numerous "short cuts" to vote in accordance with their political preferences, even if they have almost no actual understanding of politics. If you're interested, check out The Reasoning Voter by Samuel Popkin. It's just one of MANY books/articles which covers this topic.

 

Lastly, some seem to believe that one more term of Obama will "end us" or lead us over some cliff from which we cannot return. Again I don't want to disappoint you, but that's not how policymaking in this country works. Policy is made in a series of incremental steps regardless of who is president and who controls Congress. Because of institutional arrangements, large-scale change is almost impossible in this country...things happen slowly and the status quo is powerful. Even when one party controls all branches of government, they are no more successful at passing legislation than when there is a diversity of control. For more on this topic feel free to read Speaking Truth to Power by Aaron Wildavsky, and Divided We Govern by David Mayhew. If you have access to a scholarly database such as Jstor, check out "The Science of Muddling Through" and "Still Muddling, Not Yet Through" which are two articles by Charles Lindblom.

 

I do hope that those tossing out conjecture as fact with nothing to back it up do in fact take a look at these suggestions. But if you prefer not to, that's certainly your choice.

[X. Benedict]

If any President of the United States invited me to his home to honor my achievement, I'd go.

 

That's just me.

[87168]

You show more disrespect in one day of posting than I display in a week, so knock it off. And if anglo or hispano or chicano aren't banned then why is ne gro? What's the proper term?

 

Oh I did, did I. How? You resort to extremes because your argument has no foundation. You have a lot of growing up to do. I you asked me to stop using a word that you found offesnive then I would. No questions asked. You have no right nor insight as to how or why someone finds something offensive.

 

And the correct term would be black or african american. It's a shame that we are even speaking of race and an even bigger shame that I have to explain the correct terminology.

[darksabre]

Wow, this thread is incredible. I can't believe it's still open, and I also can't believe some of the gross inaccuracies being thrown around. With all due respect to Tim Thomas, he is incorrect that the Founding Fathers believed in a very limited government (in the libertarian sense, which he clearly appears to be). The fact of the matter is that so much language in the Constitution is ambiguous for a reason: it's the only way they got the thing to get ratified. Many of the Founders disagreed among themselves over exactly what powers the federal government should have. That's part of the reason two parties emerged (not surprisingly, one of them known as the Federalists...).

 

Secondly, I've seen some insinuate that the biggest problem with the American public is lack of information, and that if they were somehow informed then political outcomes would be "better." Well I'd hate to disappoint, but voters regularly behave as if they are fully informed even when they are not. Americans are able to use numerous "short cuts" to vote in accordance with their political preferences, even if they have almost no actual understanding of politics. If you're interested, check out The Reasoning Voter by Samuel Popkin. It's just one of MANY books/articles which covers this topic.

 

Lastly, some seem to believe that one more term of Obama will "end us" or lead us over some cliff from which we cannot return. Again I don't want to disappoint you, but that's not how policymaking in this country works. Policy is made in a series of incremental steps regardless of who is president and who controls Congress. Because of institutional arrangements, large-scale change is almost impossible in this country...things happen slowly and the status quo is powerful. Even when one party controls all branches of government, they are no more successful at passing legislation than when there is a diversity of control. For more on this topic feel free to read Speaking Truth to Power by Aaron Wildavsky, and Divided We Govern by David Mayhew. If you have access to a scholarly database such as Jstor, check out "The Science of Muddling Through" and "Still Muddling, Not Yet Through" which are two articles by Charles Lindblom.

 

I do hope that those tossing out conjecture as fact with nothing to back it up do in fact take a look at these suggestions. But if you prefer not to, that's certainly your choice.

 

I think I like you a little more. :beer:

[87168]

Well, I'm going to guess here but my money is on you have only been alive for 4 presidents. You aren't going to see the point in any example I could give. I didn't think it was a subtle point. You win by default.

 

haha yea 4. A good comparison would be let's see....ummmm honestly I can't think of one. Because I am talking about the United States. Not Germany, not some crazy hatred driven dead guy either. I would accept any invitation from any of the POTUS

 

Wow, this thread is incredible. I can't believe it's still open, and I also can't believe some of the gross inaccuracies being thrown around. With all due respect to Tim Thomas, he is incorrect that the Founding Fathers believed in a very limited government (in the libertarian sense, which he clearly appears to be). The fact of the matter is that so much language in the Constitution is ambiguous for a reason: it's the only way they got the thing to get ratified. Many of the Founders disagreed among themselves over exactly what powers the federal government should have. That's part of the reason two parties emerged (not surprisingly, one of them known as the Federalists...).

 

Secondly, I've seen some insinuate that the biggest problem with the American public is lack of information, and that if they were somehow informed then political outcomes would be "better." Well I'd hate to disappoint, but voters regularly behave as if they are fully informed even when they are not. Americans are able to use numerous "short cuts" to vote in accordance with their political preferences, even if they have almost no actual understanding of politics. If you're interested, check out The Reasoning Voter by Samuel Popkin. It's just one of MANY books/articles which covers this topic.

 

Lastly, some seem to believe that one more term of Obama will "end us" or lead us over some cliff from which we cannot return. Again I don't want to disappoint you, but that's not how policymaking in this country works. Policy is made in a series of incremental steps regardless of who is president and who controls Congress. Because of institutional arrangements, large-scale change is almost impossible in this country...things happen slowly and the status quo is powerful. Even when one party controls all branches of government, they are no more successful at passing legislation than when there is a diversity of control. For more on this topic feel free to read Speaking Truth to Power by Aaron Wildavsky, and Divided We Govern by David Mayhew. If you have access to a scholarly database such as Jstor, check out "The Science of Muddling Through" and "Still Muddling, Not Yet Through" which are two articles by Charles Lindblom.

 

I do hope that those tossing out conjecture as fact with nothing to back it up do in fact take a look at these suggestions. But if you prefer not to, that's certainly your choice.

 

:worthy:

 

YES!

[inkman]

And you are obviously paid to spew nonsense to get uninformed voters to believe the lie that Obama is even close to being a leftie. Not a single decision he has made since his inaguration has been anything but beneficial to the corporatist agenda which he serves as diligently as the last four presidents before him, and this whole right-wing crusade is meant to stoke the confederate/revisionist/bigot voting block into moving even further right.

:wub:

[TheChimp]

Oh I did, did I. How? You resort to extremes because your argument has no foundation. You have a lot of growing up to do. I you asked me to stop using a word that you found offesnive then I would. No questions asked. You have no right nor insight as to how or why someone finds something offensive.

 

And the correct term would be black or african american. It's a shame that we are even speaking of race and an even bigger shame that I have to explain the correct terminology.

Doesn't ne gro essentially mean black though? And are Haitians African Americans? My arguments have plenty of foundation, you just choose to ignore them when talking to me directly and instead tell weave that you noticed what my meaning was, which is offensive to me and just another example of your arrogance.

 

But ok, put your money where your mouth is. Stop using the word "and". I find it offensive.

[87168]

Doesn't ne gro essentially mean black though? And are Hatians African Americans? My arguments have plenty of foundation, you just chosoe to ignore them when talking to me directly and instead tell weave that you noticed what my meaning was, which is offensive to me and just another example of your arrogance.

 

But ok, put your money where your mouth is. Stop using the word "and". I find it offensive.

 

In spanish yes, but the use of that word here in the US had a derogatory twist to it.

 

The word "and"...haha all you do is reach. I swear it's like arguing with an adolescent. Not to mention you used it twice.

 

I have reason for not liking that word. I shouldn't have to explain myself and I won't. If you're going to be so narrow minded as try to belittle my request then I fear nothing more shall be discussed.

 

Did you really just ask if Hatians are African Americans hahahahahahahahaha wow. Ummmm well to be an African American, you kind of need to be American. You do know that right?

[TheChimp]

In spanish yes, but the use of that word here in the US had a derogatory twist to it.

 

The word "and"...haha all you do is reach. I swear it's like arguing with an adolescent. Not to mention you used it twice.

 

I have reason for not liking that word. I shouldn't have to explain myself and I won't. If you're going to be so narrow minded as try to belittle my request then I fear nothing more shall be discussed.

Good. I've been dying for you to shut up.

 

So, anyways, who else here thinks Tim Thomas is a racist bigot? Show of hands!

[biodork]

If any President of the United States invited me to his home to honor my achievement, I'd go.

 

That's just me.

 

Welcome back, XB! You picked a doozy of a thread to jump into.

[X. Benedict]

Doesn't ne gro essentially mean black though?

 

It's loaded and you know it.

 

Has using black or African-American ever restrained/inhibited you from clearly making a point?

 

give it some thought.

[87168]

Good. I've been dying for you to shut up.

 

So, anyways, who else here thinks Tim Thomas is a racist bigot? Show of hands!

 

5 bucks says the ape in your avatar has a higher IQ than you.

 

And no I don't feel Thomas is a bigot. Just behaved stupidly

[X. Benedict]

Welcome back, XB! You picked a doozy of a thread to jump into.

 

And I already regret it...

 

Thanks man. :)

[Miller30]

Over/Under on pages before the lock?

 

I was going to post 2 - no way did I ever think it was going to make 6!

[inkman]

Well. All I'm saying is that I hope some left-winger runs the ###### out of Thomas next time he sees him. Preferably Matt Ellis. Maybe then, he can justify his status as a pro left-winger.

Love it. I'd stop hating on him (did I just say that).

[Meathead]

You're an idiot. Plain and simple. I asked you not to use that word and you went ahead and used it to seem as though you're some tough guy. Your name explains it all though. You need to grow up.

sorry dude youre just wrong

 

theres no space for opinion or preference here. youre just wrong. you have a dysfunction when it comes to this topic. you are hurting the cause of us that are trying to extinguish real racism. you are more a part of the problem than the solution

 

think deeply about it and try to evolve cuz we dont need that kind of awful thinking right now

[SarasotaSabre]

I dont need to read his tweet. A snub is a snug regardless of the intent behind it. As if I would read it and say "oh well in that case..." Nice try. When it comes to the nation's leaders I would have to agree. I don't like when people speak ill of my country let alone my president. When it comes to everyday citizens...well that another story for a different time

 

Au contraire, I believe TT's Tweet to explain to offer context around his decisions, is very well thought, and is not just some mindless ideological drivel. He goes out of his may to make specific reasons, claims before both parties are at fault, and is not some knee-jerk reaction.

[87168]

sorry dude youre just wrong

 

theres no space for opinion or preference here. youre just wrong. you have a dysfunction when it comes to this topic. you are hurting the cause of us that are trying to extinguish real racism. you are more a part of the problem than the solution

 

think deeply about it and try to evolve cuz we dont need that kind of awful thinking right now

 

extinguish racism. racism will never be extinguished. If someone asks you to stop using a word because they find it offensive then don't use it period. as far a problem, will im afraid that would point into your direction for possessing the arrogance needed to basically tell someone to ge over it.

 

You know nothing about me. you know nothing of my background, yet sit here and try to point out my flaws. hahaha oye, stay in school.

[inkman]

So shouldn't Thomas boycott every game against the Capitals?

He should also refuse to accept American currency as well.

[Meathead]

This doesn't really sound independently viewing something...

its just logic. but i get your response a lot

 

todays popular conservatism isnt healthy conservatism. its more like a cult, it dosnt make logical sense, but people follow it anyway. i can rationalize exactly why many of their positions are not only inferior but dysfunctional. yet that falls on deaf ears and they will label me a liberal. which is funny cuz many liberals label me a conservative, or whatever

 

of course none of that jives with the fact that i will have voted for republicans the last two elections, just not the ones picked by a party that has lost control to people that have lost their minds. i want the gop rescued from those kooks

[87168]

Au contraire, I believe TT's Tweet to explain to offer context around his decisions, is very well thought, and is not just some mindless ideological drivel. He goes out of his may to make specific reasons, claims before both parties are at fault, and is not some knee-jerk reaction.

 

However, in the same breath says this is not about politics. If it werent about politics then he would have accepted the invite. he would have seen it as one human being to another extending their hand in gratitude/appreciation for a job well done.