o/t - Has Anyone Refused to Meet Obama?

[David / Amicus]

On the radio this morning they were saying that Mel Brooks was to
receive some award at the White House from President George W Bush but
refused to attend [because of politics].

I was wondering if anyone has refused to meet with Obama?

[Jeff Gersten]

Yes, TIm Thomas. He was the goaltender for the Boston Bruins hockey
team. Two seasons ago (or maybe it was three), they won the Stanley Cup
(the NHL championship). Championship teams are always invited to the
White House to meet the president. He refused to go because of his
political beliefs.

[David / Amicus]

Good for Tim Thomas!

Tim Thomas (ice hockey) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Address:

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?gl=US&hl=en-US&u=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Thomas_(ice_hockey)&q=tim+thomas&sa=X&ei=Y_GfUffVCoSwOe29gLgC&ved=0CBsQFjAA


It's said even if you don't respect the person you should respect the
office.

But with Obama occupying the White House I don't even respect the office
anymore!

[theget]

Didn't Michael Moriarty refuse to meet with Janet Reno for some L&O
related thing having to do with violence on tv?

[Jeff Gersten]

Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:

>Good for Tim Thomas!

His team was being homored. He detracted from that by causiing a
controversy. But, since you HATE sports (except for feeding folks to
bears), I don't expect you to understand that.

>It's said even if you don't respect the person
>you should respect the office.

>But with Obama occupying the White House I
>don't even respect the office anymore!

And yet you have posted that your proudest moment was voting to reelect
NIxon. You do realize both Nixon and Agnew resigned in disgrace.

[Jeff Gersten]

Yes, he did.

[Jeff Gersten]

I wrote:

>>Didn't Michael Moriarty refuse to meet with
>>Janet Reno for some L&O related thing
>>having to do with violence on tv?

>Yes, he did.

Let me correct that. It wasn't he would not talk to AG Janet Reno.
Instead he quit L&O as a protest to the government's position.

[theget]

On May 25, 5:38 am, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
> Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
> >Good for Tim Thomas!
>
> His team was being homored. He detracted from that by causiing a
> controversy. But, since you HATE sports (except for feeding folks to
> bears),

IOW, feeding people to bears is a sport?

Now I don't know which team to cheer for. I mean, I'd like to cheer
for my team, but we've got those neotonic faces and short canines.
And I do so love to cheer for the winners.

> I don't expect you to understand that.

Is there anyone that Thomas could have refused to meet with when his
team was being honored that you'd agree it was legitimate to refuse a
meeting with?

What if Bernie Madoff wanted to honor the team and Thomas refused to
meet with him? What about the Tsarneav brothers? Anders Brevik?

[Jeff Gersten]

the...@bigmailbox.net (theget) wrote:

>Is there anyone that Thomas could have
>refused to meet with when his team was being
>honored that you'd agree it was legitimate to
>refuse a meeting with?

>What if Bernie Madoff wanted to honor the
>team and Thomas refused to meet with him?
>What about the Tsarneav brothers? Anders
>Brevik?

I expect better arguments from you. I believe what you wrote is known by
the Latin term reductio ad absurdum (or something like that), reducing
the argument to the absurd level.

It is traditional for the winning teams in all the major sports to be
honored at the White House, and meet with the president, regardless of
which party the president belongs to. It is an honor for THE TEAM. Tim
Thomas took the focus off THE TEAM for his own selfish reasons.

And meeting with terrorists instead is an absurd comparison.

[David / Amicus]

So there's a double standard. It was okay for Mel Brooks to disrespect
President George W Bush but not for Tim Thomas to refuse to meet with
Obama.

Btw the one sport that I'd really like to see is a Spanish bullfight.
Ole'

[D.F. Manno]

In article
<9df34b3d-a808-483c...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:

> What if Bernie Madoff wanted to honor the team and Thomas refused to
> meet with him? What about the Tsarneav brothers? Anders Brevik?

I rarely agree with you, but you usually advance good arguments and make
a certain amount of sense. This, however, is ridiculous. It's the kind
of thing I expect from Fox News or some wingnut blogger. It's beneath
you.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[MittR...@rnc.com]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:52:49 -0700, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
wrote:

Tim Thomas, goalie for the Boston Bruiins refused to meet with
Obama after the Bruins won the Stanley Cup.

[theget]

On May 25, 3:38 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <9df34b3d-a808-483c-9ef3-1be814abd...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > What if Bernie Madoff wanted to honor the team and Thomas refused to
> > meet with him?  What about the Tsarneav brothers? Anders Brevik?
>
> I rarely agree with you, but you usually advance good arguments and make
> a certain amount of sense. This, however, is ridiculous.

Please tell me why you think this is ridiculous.

> It's the kind
> of thing I expect from Fox News or some wingnut blogger. It's beneath
> you.

Personally, I think you snipped too much.

[Jeff Gersten]

Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:

>So there's a double standard. It was okay for
>Mel Brooks to disrespect President George W
>Bush but not for Tim Thomas to refuse to
>meet with Obama.

Can you read? I guess not. Pretend you are listening on your radio.

When Mel Brooks refused to meet w., (if that really happened) that was a
personal statement.

Tim Thomas' TEAM was invited to the White House. He himself did not need
to have any personal time with obama. His TEAM was being honored. His
actions detracted from that honor. Instead he became the center of
attention.

This has NOTHING to do with the president's politics. It is about his
responsibility toward and respect for his TEAM.

We now pause this program for a commercial.

[theget]

On May 25, 12:10 pm, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
> the...@bigmailbox.net (theget) wrote:
> >Is there anyone that Thomas could have
> >refused to meet with when his team was being
> >honored that you'd agree it was legitimate to
> >refuse a meeting with?
> >What if Bernie Madoff wanted to honor the
> >team and Thomas refused to meet with him?
> >What about the Tsarneav brothers? Anders
> >Brevik?
>
> I expect better arguments from you. I believe what you wrote is known by
> the Latin term reductio ad absurdum (or something like that), reducing
> the argument to the absurd level.

Well, it's unlikely that THE TEAM would be honored by any of those
people, especially since one of them is dead, kaput, finished. But as
a hypothetical, I think it's a good question. Perhaps you could
suggest someone that you feel would justify the sort of reaction that
TIm Thomas had taking focus off THE TEAM.

>
> It is traditional for the winning teams in all the major sports to be
> honored at the White House, and meet with the president, regardless of
> which party the president belongs to. It is an honor for THE TEAM. Tim
> Thomas took the focus off THE TEAM for his own selfish reasons.
>
> And meeting with terrorists instead is an absurd comparison.

Not really. It's all a question of what you approve of and disapprove
of. Surely there is someone you disapprove of so much that if THE
TEAM was to meet with them, then your judgement would be that it would
be a good thing to stand up and say no to the meeting, even if it's
for THE TEAM.

Obama hit that spot for him. What's yours?

Or is THE TEAM everything? The alpha and the omega?

So what's the answer to the question? Is there anyone that Thomas

could have refused to meet with when his team was being honored that

you'd agree it was legitimate to refuse a meeting with? Or do you
think it's right to have to go to the meeting no matter who it's going
to be with, say one of the people I named above?

Let me ask a different, and perhaps only tangentially related,
hypothetical. You work as a manager for a small company that is
involved in some green energy program. As part of his campaign to do
something, Obama wants to visit your company. You are aware that a
significant number of your employees are not happy with Obama, perhaps
because of this, http://news.yahoo.com/unions-now-angry-health-care-overhaul-074904729.html,
or maybe some other reasons. They've heard about the visit and there
has been grumbling in the company lunch room and an argument or two
has broken out with some harsh language exchanged on both sides. Would
you suggest giving the employees who are unhappy about Obama's visit a
paid day off or do you tell them to keep their mouths shut and come to
work the day he's coming to honor THE COMPANY for the sake of THE
COMPANY?