Aestu wrote:
That's a load of BS. There's no "obligation" to be civil or polite either. Do people have the right to be douchebags? Sure. Doesn't mean one should be a douchebag.
Free societies are upheld by their citizens not having to be compelled to observe certain notions of decent behavior.
So what about saying, "no thanks, I'm not coming because I'm displeased with the state of our government" is indecent or makes Tim Thomas as douchebag?
Aestu wrote:
The protest was political but the invitation was not. As you point out, the President is the symbolic head of the government. To disrespect the office is to disrespect the American people. In that sense Obama is absolutely a monarch, just like every other President to fulfill that role.
Speaking as one of the American people, I don't feel that I've been disrespected. First its argued that because President Obama invited the team, the refusal to attend was inherently political...now you're arguing that there's nothing political about the event. Which is it? Either the involvement of the President makes it a political event or it doesn't. Even if it's not a political event, you still can't argue etiquette and good graces, especially since Mr. Thomas was very clear that his protest was not directed specifically against President Obama.
Aestu wrote:
This is absolutely about demonizing Obama. He's not protesting the government, he's giving the prez the finger because he's petty and small. If he really wanted to "protest the government" he could do something more constructive than behave like an angry six-year-old. He could get involved in political causes or give speeches more thoughtful than Fox News "the govt is big and evil".
I think the fact that we're arguing about something a
hockey player did is proof enough that he knew what he was doing. His goal was to send a message, and it worked. It doesn't mean he wasn't 'constructive' or that he was being 'a child' or 'thoughtless' just because you didn't like the message.
Aestu wrote:
The fact he says, "I'm not going to go into more depth lest my superficial thinking and petty motives be revealed" makes it clear he's insincere. If he was serious about protesting Washington then he'd try to affect change by speaking his mind in a constructive way. He doesn't because he can't, and clearly doesn't care anyway.
He kept his message simple. I don't see anything surprising about that in a world where 140-character messages have become one of the standards of communication. He also, by keeping his message simple, was not drawing his statement out into a debate that overshadowed the event to which he was invited.
Aestu wrote:
Would he be doing this crap if the President was a Republican? If it were Bush? Somehow I doubt it.
If you take the man at his word, yes, he would have.
Aestu wrote:
They don't get paid millions a year to smack a puck around a rink. They face real danger.
This man is a coddled coward.
Someone has obviously never seen a hockey game, or they wouldn't be using the word 'coddled.'
Yuratuhl wrote:
Is he black? Because if he is, the police have probable cause.
That made me laugh so hard.
Your Pal,
Jubber
