And then other people are every bit as qualified to refuse to hire them. Could somebody please quote the pertinent part of US law that requires people to hire Susie and Timmie for public appearances?
What part of US Code is this? What is the pertinent caselaw?
And the McCarthy-era blacklists were “legal,” too. Doesn’t make 'em right.
Please try to follow along Dogface. No one is saying that Robbins and Sarandon have to be hired by anyone (would they even have been paid in the first place? I don’t know if that’s clear. Seems like it was just a courtesy appearance). However, once you invite someone to an event, it’s your responsiblity to not be a political jackass and to not uninvite them for unrelated reasons. He’s under no penalty to do so (keep working that strawman!) except that for the outrage of those opposed to his action of politicizing an non-political event. Especially considering in this specific example that Robbins and Sarandon, while political, are not rabble-rousers and surely had no intention to make political comments.
Goddamn it, don’t you all know that the * ** only responsible ** *way to speak is to ** agree ** with Our Leader and His Glorious Policies?
Jeez…
Writer Cancels Over Cooperstown ‘Bull Durham’ Snub
A minor gesture perhaps, but a gesture nonetheless. Just goes to show that even consequences have consequences. Now maybe the warmongers will boycott Kahn’s books…
See my above “weekend warrior” criteria.
Not sure what this debate is about. History is history. It doesn’t matter what you’re for or against at this point. It’s already history. The funny thing is, is that people still protested the US joining WWII after the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor. All I’m worried about now is this new Patriot Act laws our Government is trying to pass. Internment camps could be next. Let’s just relax and Play Ball…
Rush, is that you?
Clearly, no laws were broken. No one has to hire Robbins or Sarandon (calling them Timmie and Susie doesn’t make them look small. It makes you look small_minded) Lot’s of folks hire them anyhoo. Because they have some particular talents. Talents that made Bull Durham a hit movie.
But if the HoF wants to cancel the celebration, they can do that. No one has said otherwise. And they can publicly argue with the pair all they want. Being used to the public eye, the pair might have a slight edge.
But the HoF could have went about this in a much better way. As I suggested earlier, they could have spoken to the pair and asked them not to make political statements at the event. (Robbins has said he wouldn’t have made political statements at the event anyway). Or, the HoF could’ve cancelled the event and simply stated that “it didn’t seem prudent to hold the event during wartime”. Would’ve been the classy move, IMO.
But one guy, one guy, decided he would turn a baseball event into a political football, depriving many, many folks of what would surely be really good time. Out of spite, for all I can see.
He can do that. But it still makes him a putz.
If you amend it to “unless asked” I’d get behind it. You’ll probably disappoint me by turning out not to be serious about it, though 
Random:
Yeah, boy howdy, Susan Sarandon just wouldn’t shut her yap about the war when she presented at the Academy Awards, would she?
What’s that? Before millions of people, and she didn’t say a word about it? Well, never mind then.
(What makes this even funnier is that at no point did Petroskey contact Robbins and Sarandon and say, “Hey, I’m worried about you using this event as a soapbox; would you mind if you confined yourself to baseball-related topics?” That is, there’s absolutely no indication that politics would even have been an issue had Petroskey not preemptively made it so.)
Nonsense. He had definitive and reliable intelligence that they were going to determined to exploit this pure American event into a diatribe undermining everything that is good and right. He cannot release the source of this intelligence due to national security concerns.
Oh, my, you are just so funny! And do you say the same to other people on this board who call the President “shrub” or liberals “the loony left” or Christians “fundies” or…?
I think you get the point. I’ll have to read your posts with a fresh attitude, I guess.
In the pit, no. But this isn’t the pit. The standards are a little different here.
Continuing the hijack:
To be fair, I don’t think any ‘special qualifications’ are necessary to be a political commentator, any more than you need any special qualifications to go into politics. It’s a generalist’s profession.
Hey cool, now I’m a ‘cryptofascist’! Always wanted to be one of them.
Ummm, Dogface, please acquaint yourself with the forum rules.
[sub]Oops! Please ignore my previous post. Shoulda read down further and seen that that line of the discussion had already been taken further. My bad. [/sub]
The “stuff” that always seems to be unfair and happening is when people in power abuse their authority to punish those who challenge them or their ideas. But we’re just supposed to put up with it. Come on, admit it, the total semantic content of your post is, “Bend over.” A great and inspiring message if you’re into that sort of thing, I suppose.
One might need to realize that given your logic Susan and Tim must then be considered to be abusive of their authority as well. They both go hand in hand. It all depends on your viewpoint If you agree with Susan and Tim you will think Petrosky is out of line and vice versa.
Whose post are you refering to?
mls