waldo Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what the scheduled entertainment was. I certainly hope the lock comes quickly... First of all, thank you for your service. Second, the bolded statement makes no sense and is at odds with what you and you brothers and sisters are fighting to defend. This isn't Tim Thomas as a member of the military refusing to follow the orders of the commander-in-chief. This is a legitimate political protest. And we should all be clear that presidents don't conduct these team visits because they love the sport -- the current president has never been to a Caps game -- they do them for one reason only, and that is to try to increase their popularity. If Thomas doesn't want to help the president's reelection campaign because he thinks Obama's an incompetent bozo with a radical left-wing agenda who's never had a real job, has no idea how the private economy works and has visited great harm on this country both domestically and internationally -- that is 100% within Thomas' rights. There is no room for rational thought here. Please cease and desist.
billsrcursed Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 But it's really gone downhill since Michael Scott left. Agreed. Parks and Recreation has steam rolled the Office... it's "literally" amazing.
LGR4GM Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Wall dagnabbit it does jive!!! I read the first quote differently, misunderstanding that TT meant actual growth. he should probably get that looked at then... :sick:
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Speaking of Marxism, where does Karl rank among the all-time Marxes? I have him below Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Zeppo, above Richard and Gummo. Groucho vs Jim Corsi
rickshaw Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Not an American, as you know, but this is a classless move by Thomas and makes me realize he's more of an ass than I already thought he was already. I don't fall for his big shite eating grin he throws out theres. He's a goof and just proved it again.
... Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 This thread still be unshackled. Surely there would have been temp bans and stuff by now... :huh: I am confused by posts like rickshaw's above, where people are saying things like it's "classless" and "offensive". I wish someone could explain themselves on that objectively. What's so offensive about it, really? The office really can't be the reason - I mean, if people really felt this strongly about the sanctity and honor of the US Presidency, political discourse in this country would be far less toxic than it is. I hope I don't have to connect the dots on that thought...this thread does not give me much hope there, though.
darksabre Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 This thread still be unshackled. Surely there would have been temp bans and stuff by now... :huh: I am confused by posts like rickshaw's above, where people are saying things like it's "classless" and "offensive". I wish someone could explain themselves on that objectively. What's so offensive about it, really? The office really can't be the reason - I mean, if people really felt this strongly about the sanctity and honor of the US Presidency, political discourse in this country would be far less toxic than it is. I hope I don't have to connect the dots on that thought...this thread does not give me much hope there, though. There's a lot of wild tangents in this thread that I don't even want to explore. My simple opinion on the matter was that I just thought it was silly not to want to meet the President. As someone else in the thread said, what American doesn't want to tell their kids they met the President at the White House? I don't have issues with Tim Thomas' reasoning, nor do I think less of him as a goaltender or as an American. Just seemed petty on his part, especially since, as others have mentioned, it casts a negative light and brings undue attention to himself and the Bruins.
... Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 My simple opinion on the matter was that I just thought it was silly not to want to meet the President. As someone else in the thread said, what American doesn't want to tell their kids they met the President at the White House? Just seemed petty on his part, especially since, as others have mentioned, it casts a negative light and brings undue attention to himself and the Bruins. I understand this and I think in happier times this is reasonable. For example, if this were the '90s, I'd think it'd be silly not to want to meet Clinton. However, I think a lot of people here are really not down with the pulse of the country at the moment. This president, and his party, have done quite a lot to polarize the country - this is in lieu of many promises to unite the country regardless of party or ideology. And, please, I am not trying to point fingers or start several pages of arguments, rather I'm just telling it as I see it. I understand there are people who think Bush and the Republicans "started it". At some point, and that point is quite obviously personal for each individual, one can no longer separate ideology from tradition (for lack of a better word at the moment) because they see the other as wholly abusing and/or corrupting their position. For example, I may have aunts and uncles, but the people known as my extended family have so corrupted and abused that position, I do not consider them "family" at all - they are just people I know who under any other circumstance I would never have met or given the time of day.
Bullwinkle Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Last time I checked this was a free country with the right to free expression, which the left so vehemently defends. And this was his way of expressing his opinion and standing up for his convictions. And leave out the name-calling - uncalled for. You can disagree with me but you lose relevance when you do that. I believe you said it was a free country. Thomas is an idiot for what he did and no one should support such behavior. No president in recent times was as divisive as G.W. Bush and as far as I know, no one boycotted him - unless of course, all hockey players are right wingers - which I highly doubt. 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. I don't usually agree with you. But I certainly do this time. Are you being really really sarcastic, or are you serious with your accusation. I am obviously being paid to spew nonsense to get uninformed voters to believe the lie that Obama is even close to being a leftie.? You don't know me and I take alot of offense to your asinine accusations. I believe this upcoming POTUS election is the most important of my life, and the point I was trying to make is that I truly hope, with all my heart, that there are enough INFORMED decisions to make the right decision, because IMHO if Obama gets re-elected, that's it..... we are done. Enough of your conspiracy theory that I am being paid - wow, is that you or your avatar speaking? So you decided to throw a political bomb into this site and see what happened. How right wing of you. It's tempting to get into politics here, but I won't. This is a hockey site, not Faux News. The people in charge should have deleted your thread as soon as it was posted.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 I understand this and I think in happier times this is reasonable. For example, if this were the '90s, I'd think it'd be silly not to want to meet Clinton. However, I think a lot of people here are really not down with the pulse of the country at the moment. This president, and his party, have done quite a lot to polarize the country - this is in lieu of many promises to unite the country regardless of party or ideology. And, please, I am not trying to point fingers or start several pages of arguments, rather I'm just telling it as I see it. I understand there are people who think Bush and the Republicans "started it". At some point, and that point is quite obviously personal for each individual, one can no longer separate ideology from tradition (for lack of a better word at the moment) because they see the other as wholly abusing and/or corrupting their position. For example, I may have aunts and uncles, but the people known as my extended family have so corrupted and abused that position, I do not consider them "family" at all - they are just people I know who under any other circumstance I would never have met or given the time of day. It would certainly appear this way, but generally speaking no single president is more polarizing than another. The American public, and our political parties, have become more polarized over time since the late 60s/early 70s. It's not that President Obama is more polarizing than President George W. Bush, it's that the country itself is more polarized so it simply appears that the president is causing it, but it's really not the case. Modern presidents are just victims of an increasingly polarized electorate, their policies and practices really have nothing to do with it. The Parties used to be diverse because of FDR's New Deal coalition...conservative Democrats in the South combined with more liberal Democrats in the northeast. In the 60s when racial issues came to the forefront, it shattered the New Deal coalition because the southern conservative Democrats were, simply put, not fans of racial integration. Barry Goldwater used this division within the Democratic Party to start converting conservative Democrats into Republicans. Long story short, the rise of racial politics caused the parties to homogenize, and the diverse party structure was eventually gone. Issue Evolution by Edward Carmines and James Stimson lays it out really well how it happened. As an aside, there really are very few independents. In fact, when most people claim to be independent, they are probably inadvertently lying. It's fashionable to think of oneself as independent, and not beholden to a particular party. Roughly 30-35% of the public identifies as independents. However, and importantly, they behave as partisans. When examining voting behavior in elections, there ends up being only about 8% of voters who actually act as true independents...the rest act as partisans. Polarization and its side effect of disappearing independents is thoroughly examined in The Disappearing Center by Alan Abramowitz. For those actually interested in these books, they're both pretty easy reads as they don't have any advanced statistics involved. I highly recommend them if anybody is actually interested in "boring" political stuff, aka how and why our politics are the way they are, as opposed to the interesting stuff like arguing over specific policies.
... Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Your schtick is showing. :blush: It would certainly appear this way, but generally speaking no single president is more polarizing than another. Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick. Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick. Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick. Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.Ivory Tower Wannabe Schtick.
SwampD Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 WTF happened here? Some random thoughts on this thread- -Both parties do their darndest to polarize and both blame the other side for polarizing. Both are to blame equally. -Just because someone yells the loudest or longest doesn't make them right. -There is no right or wrong in politics. There is only what I want and what you want and who wins. -I'm secure enough to know when someone is smarter than me or more educated. I usually listen to that person so that I might learn. -Hamster in a wok is pure genius. The thread should have ended right there.
stenbaro Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 I say way to go Tim Thomas - love your passion and principles to not go with a bunch of lemmings to the White House to be congratulated by Obama. I say props to you for following your convictions, wish there were more of those like you ! link: http://www.politico....ama-111928.html Well good for him..He coulda went Green Day and wrote a song..American Idiot..Instead he declined to acknowledge....Hell with everyone who ###### at him for taking a silent stand....Ive seen much worse from the other side..Awesome...Give him a free dinner with all the welfarers they bus in to vote Obamas ass in again..Difference is he would probably pay for his meal.....
neverenough Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Good for you TT! I cant wait for obama to be gone.
blugold43 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 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. this is where the thread should hae been closed. obama is politically closer to reagan than than current crop of neocon kooks are. but they keep howling for more. i guess they won't stop until our only ally is israel and bibi himself his calling the shots. oh that, and nuclear war with iran. -Both parties do their darndest to polarize and both blame the other side for polarizing. Both are to blame equally. this is the biggest fallacy of all. the obstructionism has come from one side only.
Knightrider Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 WTF happened here? Some random thoughts on this thread- -Both parties do their darndest to polarize and both blame the other side for polarizing. Both are to blame equally. -Just because someone yells the loudest or longest doesn't make them right. -There is no right or wrong in politics. There is only what I want and what you want and who wins. -I'm secure enough to know when someone is smarter than me or more educated. I usually listen to that person so that I might learn. -Hamster in a wok is pure genius. The thread should have ended right there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El0b0-hoU1k I agree.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.