Tim Thomas White House Snub Stirs Outrage and Support

Why?

It is a waste of time and money. If we are going to cut spending we should begin with waste and this is nothing more than window dressing. The President has more important things to do than hang out with a bunch of grown children that whine and cry when they do not get their way.

One use of sporting events is to bring a respite of unity among politically squabbling factions at least in one shared human endeavor. The ancient and modern Olympics are an example. You don't think the Spartans and the Athenians had some political differences, but at the Games, for the moment they were all Greeks.

The team visit to honor the team's achievement in the sport was of that nature. But Tim decided to spoil it and interject political squabbling. I therefore nominate him for "The Rovie" in recognition of finding a way to use sport to increase political divisiveness in our country. Congratulations Tim.

I don't understand this cease to be an individual theory. Regardless of what my profession, race, gender, religion, economic, military status is...I will always be an individual with thoughts and opinions that are my own.

I find no reason why the team should feel embarrassed.

This was a team event which was an inappropriate platform for insertion of an individual political statement. Why does he get to use a team event to push his individual agenda. I don't get to do that; you don't get to do that. He just stole the spotlight for his individual agenda from his team mates. He spoiled and overshadowed their honor.

No one's taking away his right to his opinion or to express it in an appropriate venue.

Who gets to determine the appropriate venue?

We both have the ability to do the exact same thing. Sure it likely won't be on the same platform, but that doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there.

He leveraged the event for his own selfish purposes. That's the criteria that I used to form my opinion of the inappropriateness of the venue. Had he called a press conference on a different day and said I have an announcement to make,"I Think government is bad". No one would have come or he would have been laughed off the stage. So he cheated. He hijacked the event for his personal use. Now you've got your opinion and I've got mine. But why don't you get a little more specific than "Who gets to determine the appropriate venue?" My opinion of variations of the who sets the standards argument;and what do you mean by meaning; etc is that it is intellectually lazy.

A couple of things...

A) His purposes don't seem that selfish to me.

B) Opting not to attend and posting a statement on his Facebook page doesn't amount to 'leveraging an event'.

Who gets to determine the appropriateness of the venue is not an intellectually lazy question. What you find appropriate and what I find appropriate are clearly two different things and therefore legitimizes the question. At the end of the day the person taking the stand gets to make the decision. It's perfectly fine if you do not support them, but don't be confused that there are several of us who do. Many who think it's time to break the cycle of apathy and actually take a stand, have a voice and create forward motion based on action.

So while you say it's inappropriate I say it's about damn time.

B) Opting not to attend and posting a statement on his Facebook page doesn't amount to 'leveraging an event'.

The Tim Thomas White House snub has stirred up outrage from some NHL fans who think should not have put his personal feelings above his team.

I'm not saying he was smart and thought it all the way through. Maybe you will grant that his actions did have unintended consequences. His actions and those consequences reflected back on the team. So I'm criticizing his actions; I'm not on the apologist or encouraging side of this argument. Just like I wouldn't be rooting for the Captain of the Costa Concordia, even though I'm sure he didn't intend to capsize the ship through his ill considered actions.

"He chose not to come,” Bruins general manager Peter Chiarelli said." "I can require someone to attend a team event. If they don’t, I can suspend him.” Chiarelli told the Boston Globe. “I’m not suspending Tim. Whatever his position is, it isn’t reflective of the Boston Bruins nor my own."

I don't know that his team is upset with him nor do I think that would be a reason for him to not act as he did. Fans are entitled to their own opinion and often become upset with anybody for any reason. Their loyalty can be fleeting and shouldn't determine someone's behavior.

I'm unsure if he thought it through or not. Perhaps, as some have said, he gave up a golden opportunity to speak with the president up close and personal. All things aside he should be applauded for standing behind something that he believes in.

Strong argument. I'll counter with maybe that 's just damage control. Now I have a confession to make. Sometimes I just like to argue. this was one of those times. I enjoyed it. You're a good debater.

We must be cut from the same cloth then as I too enjoy a decent differing of opinion. It's one of the reasons I visit this website...though it's not often found here these days. :-/

I really don't care if Tim Thomas is a spoil sport and a no show.

But how about these two assholes not attending the state of the union address?

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas rarely attend State of the Union addresses. Scalia last year in a speech to the Federalist Society called the annual gathering on Capitol Hill “a juvenile spectacle. And I resent being called upon to the indignity.” Thomas has said the event has become too “partisan” and he finds it uncomfortable as a judge to sit there. Scalia appeared yesterday before the House Tea Party Caucus to discuss how to write constitutional legislation. The talk was hosted by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.).

And good for him for doing what he believed in.