Baseball Fans: Ok, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandan BANNED.

[LeeTJ]

Anyone see this??

the head of the Baseball HOF cancelled a Weekend commemorative for Bull Durham and appearances by Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon BECAUSE he disagrees with their views on the war.

This is an interesting one.

Let me start off by stating I am in complete agreement with this war. I never protested it from Day One or before.

I think it is interesting tho, that the commisioner of the HOF chooses to cancel appearances by T R adn S S because he disagrees with their political views tho. and the reasons he states are LUDICROUS. he claims that it weakens the soldiers positions in IRAQ and that it is DANGEROUS. OMFG. that's soo ludicrous.

The fact that the head of the HOF is a former assistant Press Secretary for Reagon adds more fuel to the fire.

I was listening on Mike and the Mad Dog on WFAN today and Chris Russo (mad dog) says, He COMPLETELY disagrees with the decision by the HOF and then says BUT he disagrees with Robbins stand. His also states that he thinks it's 1 and 1. both are wrong and both are right. although he COMPLETELY agrees that TR and SS should be allowed to visit the HOF and that this commemorative SHOULD NOT have been cancelled.

it seems to me tho, that his position that he DISAGREES with Tim Robbins POSITION on the war actually FURTHER supports his disagreement with the HOF.

I agree with Russo here. I think Robbins position on the war is COMPLETELY WRONG BUT it should have no bearing on this commemoration.

just my opinion of course.

 

[Electric Amish]

BD is a lame movie anyway...

amish

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
BD is a lame movie anyway...

amish

i agree.

 

[GasX]

Say what you want about his motivations and whatnot. The REAL problem is that Sarandon and Robbins would bring their voices to the event as well as their celebrity.

As much as free speech is a right, it is noone's obligation to pay for a stage for their opponents to speak from.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
BD is a lame movie anyway...

amish

Man you've got an eclectic taste in movies. Bull Durham was great.

 

[FoBoT]

that is too bad , that movie is kinda funny

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Say what you want about his motivations and whatnot. The REAL problem is that Sarandon and Robbins would bring their voices to the event as well as their celebrity.

As much as free speech is a right, it is noone's obligation to pay for a stage for their opponents to speak from.

agreed. but they could have made TR and SS's visit conditional.

they didn't according to TR, there was no warning, they simply sent a letter to TR and to the AP with no warning or condition saying it was cancelled.

this is an appearance that had been in the books for over a year.

also, doesn't the canceling itself make a political statement??

the point is, it was about baseball and should have been about baseball and not politics.

 

[notfred]

WTF is this thread? What's HOF? What's BD?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Say what you want about his motivations and whatnot. The REAL problem is that Sarandon and Robbins would bring their voices to the event as well as their celebrity.

As much as free speech is a right, it is noone's obligation to pay for a stage for their opponents to speak from.

Agree or not with their view regarding this war they weren't the Morons that Politicized this event. Baseball isn't the domain fror Neo Neanderthals who get their panties in a wad over someone elses political views. I seriously doubt either of them would have said anything about the war. Hell Sarandon didn't make a peep about it at the Oscars.

 

[FoBoT]

the BHOF isn't a public entity, it is privately owned, correct? therefore they can do what ever they feel like

or if a corporation owns it (even a publically owned corp.) , then the person that decided this only has to answer to the board/stockholders

big deal

 

[MacGaven]

This only adds publicity to where it is unwanted.

Tim Robbins' and Susan Sarandon's priveleged and incoherent view of the war on Iraq.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Say what you want about his motivations and whatnot. The REAL problem is that Sarandon and Robbins would bring their voices to the event as well as their celebrity.

As much as free speech is a right, it is noone's obligation to pay for a stage for their opponents to speak from.

Agree or not with their view regarding this war they weren't the Morons that Politicized this event. Baseball isn't the domain fror Neo Neanderthals who get their panties in a wad over someone elses political views. I seriously doubt either of them would have said anything about the war. Hell Sarandon didn't make a peep about it at the Oscars.

True - I saw her on The Daily Show and the conversation was all about the reaction toi celebrities views rather than her views. I think she is laying low. She did pretty much call Michael Moore an attention whore...

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: notfred
WTF is this thread? What's HOF? What's BD?

HOF = Hall of Fame?

BD = Bull Durham (a movie they both made)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: MacGaven
This only adds publicity to where it is unwanted.

Tim Robbins' and Susan Sarandon's priveleged and incoherent view of the war on Iraq.

Compared to your incoherent and under priveleged view of the war?

 

[CChaos]

Bah. To some people Cooperstown is a shrine. The HoF should stay apolitical.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
the BHOF isn't a public entity, it is privately owned, correct? therefore they can do what ever they feel like

or if a corporation owns it (even a publically owned corp.) , then the person that decided this only has to answer to the board/stockholders

big deal

i agree. it is a privately owned entity. as a baseball fan, i do have the right to question the decision tho. it is a decision made that effects the public so the public has a right to comment on the decision.

i disagree with that decision.

 

[LeeTJ]

wow, no debate? no bickering?? this isn't like ATOT at all.

 

[Mani]

This baseball commissioner sounds like an asshat.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Gotta agree with the Mad Dog here...

<-----Misses Mike and the Mad Dog since I've moved to LA

but interesting side note: there is a guy on the sports channel out here, i forget his name cause I dont listen to it enough (not as entertaining as WFAN) and he has the same kinda crazy voice as the Mad Dog, but he is a Mets fan in california (for those who dont know, the Mad Dog is a crazy SF Giants fan in NYC)

another side note
<---- has a picture of Mad Dog wearing a Mets Uniform outside Shea before a MEts-Cards playoff game after the mets beat the giants

 

[ThePresence]

The reason they banned them is because of what they stand for. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins CHOSE to become outspoken peaceniks, and this is now what they are known as. Baseball doesn't want to look like they are making a politcal anti-war statement. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[ChicagoMaroon]

Eh, the Basehall HOF is a private organization exercising its freedom of speech... just like, I dunno... Robbins and Sarandon.

If I made public statements in support of the KKK, why shouldn't any reasoned organization ban me from appearing at their functions. Same thing w/ TR and SS.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon
Eh, the Basehall HOF is a private organization exercising its freedom of speech... just like, I dunno... Robbins and Sarandon.

If I made public statements in support of the KKK, why shouldn't any reasoned organization ban me from appearing at their functions. Same thing w/ TR and SS.

first of all, comparing anti-war people to KKK is ludicrous. it's so ludicrous i probably shouldn't even respond.

next, i'd like to get a poll of Baseball HOF leadership. see if everyone there agreed with the decision by the Petrovsky.

I also have a problem with this quote.

"ultimately could put our troops in even more danger," said Petroskey, a former White House assistant press secretary under President Reagan.

why didn't he just have the guts to come out and say it's because he disagrees with them. to state that their stand put the troops in any additional danger at all is beyond ludicrous.

finally a quote from one of my favorite espn writers Rob Neyer.

This isn't censorship, by its most technical definition. But you know, there are various forms of censorship. Here, the message is that if you say anything deemed offensive by the powers that be -- Petroskey, by the way, spent many years working for Republican politicians -- you will be disciplined. And if that's not censorship, whatever it is ain't pretty.

 

[ChicagoMaroon]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon
Eh, the Basehall HOF is a private organization exercising its freedom of speech... just like, I dunno... Robbins and Sarandon.

If I made public statements in support of the KKK, why shouldn't any reasoned organization ban me from appearing at their functions. Same thing w/ TR and SS.

first of all, comparing anti-war people to KKK is ludicrous. it's so ludicrous i probably shouldn't even respond.

next, i'd like to get a poll of Baseball HOF leadership. see if everyone there agreed with the decision by the Petrovsky.

Analogy is not always comparison, and you shouldn't respond if you're so reactionary as to jump to unfounded conclusions.

Does the head/CEO/owner of your company/firm conduct a poll for every decision? If Petrovsky was properly vested with the power to make this decision, then he was well within his rights to do so.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon
Eh, the Basehall HOF is a private organization exercising its freedom of speech... just like, I dunno... Robbins and Sarandon.

If I made public statements in support of the KKK, why shouldn't any reasoned organization ban me from appearing at their functions. Same thing w/ TR and SS.

first of all, comparing anti-war people to KKK is ludicrous. it's so ludicrous i probably shouldn't even respond.

next, i'd like to get a poll of Baseball HOF leadership. see if everyone there agreed with the decision by the Petrovsky.

Analogy is not always comparison, and you shouldn't respond if you're so reactionary as to jump to unfounded conclusions.

Does the head/CEO/owner of your company/firm conduct a poll for every decision? If Petrovsky was properly vested with the power to make this decision, then he was well within his rights to do so.

explain to me how analogy ISN'T comparison??

your trying to say that it is just as reasonable to ban someone who speaks out against the KKK as it was to ban SS and TR for speaking out against the war.

so, how exactly is that NOT a comparison?

and just WHERE did i make an assumption?? i just took what you said at face value.

 

[ChicagoMaroon]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon
Eh, the Basehall HOF is a private organization exercising its freedom of speech... just like, I dunno... Robbins and Sarandon.

If I made public statements in support of the KKK, why shouldn't any reasoned organization ban me from appearing at their functions. Same thing w/ TR and SS.

first of all, comparing anti-war people to KKK is ludicrous. it's so ludicrous i probably shouldn't even respond.

next, i'd like to get a poll of Baseball HOF leadership. see if everyone there agreed with the decision by the Petrovsky.

Analogy is not always comparison, and you shouldn't respond if you're so reactionary as to jump to unfounded conclusions.

Does the head/CEO/owner of your company/firm conduct a poll for every decision? If Petrovsky was properly vested with the power to make this decision, then he was well within his rights to do so.

explain to me how analogy ISN'T comparison??

your trying to say that it is just as reasonable to ban someone who speaks out against the KKK as it was to ban SS and TR for speaking out against the war.

so, how exactly is that NOT a comparison?

and just WHERE did i make an assumption?? i just took what you said at face value.

Oy.

X states he supports A, which Y is against. Y bans X from Y's functions.

Analogy: Z states he supports B, which J is against. J bans Z from J's functions.

The situations are structurally similar, but X != Z and A !=B

Comparison: X ~= Z and/or A ~= B

But if I have to state it in simple terms, no I do not think or intend to state that anti-war people are like KKK supporters.