F Nike!

AFAIAC... the Nike swoosh was already an official trademark of gangster rapers, law breakers and those not bright enough to avoid $200 shoes while living in squalor. I don't believe I have anything with that symbol in my wardrobe.

The BLM movement, as far as I can tell, is all about racism and civil disobedience... and it's heroes are mostly felons. I don't mean to say there isn't a good cause buried under the BS, but the stuff I see glorified is pure BS and promotes racism.

The Pledge of allegiance and the flag mean something to me. Not that they need to have the same meaning to anyone else, but as much as the flag shouldn't be used commercially, I disagree with it's use in this manor as well.

Nike never had me as a customer, the NFL has lost me... I don't need to voice my protest very often, but also don't need to subject myself to something I find offensive. If the NFL was concerned with my demographic, they could have addressed this. I was already disgusted by the glorification of so many players who behaved badly, so maybe I was drifting away from the NFL anyhow.

I sound like a middle aged white guy, because I am one. But I don't feel racist and don't want to promote racial issues. I can respect the right of a person to not see things as I do, but not their right to avoid the same laws and social necessities that I do. I see too much of a lack of respect for others, in so many of the folks who seem to be demanding respect. Just watch the line jumpers next time your in one... I bet they're wearing a "swoosh".
 
tbm3fan said:
Sigh, another factual mistake that needs to be corrected.
Click to expand...

You get to wear a gold star on your forehead today. I was forced to third-party check this, which meant I had to read a bunch of nonsense written by jock-strap sniffing sportz wannabes. I'd rather read SKIM module logic.

Where I said "decades" change that to "nearly 10 years", and amend compulsory to "compulsory within the last year because up until 2016, no one had yet attempted such a publicity stunt."

It changes nothing about the core of my point. For as wonderful as the 1st amendment is, people really have a hard time wrapping their heads around it in a free country.

You have the right to express your beliefs. You aren't granted freedom from criticism. You aren't guaranteed a bullhorn, a crowd, free broadcast time, employment, "equal time", fairness or an endorsement deal.
 
All this BS over two companies in which I have no interest. 20 years ago I thought ever the hipster was named "Tommy".
Never understood the reason to pay premium prices to wear somebody else's name or logo on my clothes.
And life can go on without the NFL. It's interesting how the only things people care about the Super Bowl are the commercials, who sings the National Anthem and who performs at halftime.
 
The solution is simple: go to commercial break during the Anthem and return for the kickoff. Why do the viewers at home need to see it? Do any of you that watch sporting events at home get up from the couch with hand over heart during the televised Anthem? I don't. If there is no outlet for their "protest" it will die quickly. I think the media is the most culpable party in this whole ordeal.
 
Bwahahah....
41099649_1901432739948415_8010298020618829824_n.jpg
 
rexus31 said:
The solution is simple: go to commercial break during the Anthem and return for the kickoff. Why do the viewers at home need to see it? Do any of you that watch sporting events at home get up from the couch with hand over heart during the televised Anthem? I don't. If there is no outlet for their "protest" it will die quickly. I think the media is the most culpable party in this whole ordeal.
Click to expand...
If that was to happen, can you imagine the uproar it would cause? Whether they sit, stand, or get a beer, people would claim that the networks were also taking a knee by purposely not televising the Anthem. Not only the networks, but the companies that dare have their ads taking the place of the Anthem. No chance of winning for them.
 
They should play an episode of "Cops" during breaks and halftime!!!
 
Carmine said:
Where I said "decades" change that to "nearly 10 years", and amend compulsory to "compulsory within the last year because up until 2016, no one had yet attempted such a publicity stunt."
Click to expand...

Almost there. Now find the word "compulsory" in the contract and paste an excerpt of it here. One, probably won't find that word, and it's meaning used. Two, explain to me why something in a free country must be compulsory.
 
67Monaco said:
Bwahahah....View attachment 210703
Click to expand...

When I saw what Nike decided to do I knew they were on to something. Their market here, and it is not their only market, is aimed at the under 35 crowd. It always has been since inception. A large part of that particular market is African-American. Gee, let me think about that will sales go up or sales go down. Boy, that is a tough one but Alex I'll say what goes up. Now investors are pretty smart when it comes to the dollar and they are more patriotic to the dollar than to anything else.

So let's look at Nike. It is up 50% this year and 134% over the last 5 years. It is on a better bull run that the overall market is and investors don't like to sit out bull runs. The Nike brand is the 18th most valuable in the world. Much of Nike's growth is coming from Latin America up 8%, Europe up 13%, and China up 16% and they don't care about football. At least American football. Nike's ad campaign for the last 30 years has been "Just do it". They are now celebrating that 30 year anniversary and they are going to tell an athlete that he shouldn't have just done it out of passion?

So contrary to what's his name saying today that Nike's stock is being hammered it is up today by 0.52 and in no time that 3% loss will be wiped out. Nike made a smart move both from the marketing side and the investor side. So all those youtube videos of a pair of Nike shoes burning are cute but... So What.
 
tbm3fan said:
Almost there. Now find the word "compulsory" in the contract and paste an excerpt of it here. One, probably won't find that word, and it's meaning used. Two, explain to me why something in a free country must be compulsory.
Click to expand...

Compulsory for employment. As in:

It was compulsory for my continued employment that I take a hazardous waste refresher course this morning.

For CEOs and others who "represent" a company or organization 24/7, they have morality clauses in their contracts. That means the CFO of let's say Purina Dog Food can't claim "It doesn't matter that I was playing a slot machine with a stripper on my lap... I wasn't at work!" He still gets fired.

The NFL leadership has decided that anthem protests damage their bottom line. To continue in their employ, you either stand quietly or stay in the locker room. If either of these don't work for you, you're free to end the contract.

If it was suggested that Kapernick be imprisoned, I would oppose that. Quite frankly, Obamacare was more compulsory (carrying fines or jail time if you failed to participate) than standing for the anthem.
 
Today on ESPN First Take, they, specifically one guy, still want to deny that the loss of NFL viewership has anything to do with the recent kneeling protests. But, they then question whether other players should support NIKE or not? Which is it? Does it hurt or not?

I will speak for myself: I don't watch sports for political commentary. Therefore I, as one person, has stopped watching the NFL. I'll bet I'm not alone.

I think some of these commentators need to get their heads out out their butts and wake up.

But still boycott In-N-Out.

:lol:
 
But still boycott In-N-Out.

:lol:[/QUOTE]

My wife's been boycotting In-N-Out for about 15 years. Not the restaurant though.
 
Some smart assed decided they wanted to make it easier to get in and out, so they made up some stupid boycott. Naturally the slaves fell right in line with it and the rest of their customers are now enjoying reduced wait times.



No boycott of In-N-Out, says California Democratic Party leader

"Bauman attracted nationwide attention when he tweeted Aug. 29 that it was time to #BoycottInNOut because the chain had donated tens of thousands of dollars to the California Republican Party."


'Course they don't mention that INO donated the exact same amount to both parties.
 
tbm3fan said:
When I saw what Nike decided to do I knew they were on to something. Their market here, and it is not their only market, is aimed at the under 35 crowd. It always has been since inception. A large part of that particular market is African-American. Gee, let me think about that will sales go up or sales go down. Boy, that is a tough one but Alex I'll say what goes up. Now investors are pretty smart when it comes to the dollar and they are more patriotic to the dollar than to anything else.

So let's look at Nike. It is up 50% this year and 134% over the last 5 years. It is on a better bull run that the overall market is and investors don't like to sit out bull runs. The Nike brand is the 18th most valuable in the world. Much of Nike's growth is coming from Latin America up 8%, Europe up 13%, and China up 16% and they don't care about football. At least American football. Nike's ad campaign for the last 30 years has been "Just do it". They are now celebrating that 30 year anniversary and they are going to tell an athlete that he shouldn't have just done it out of passion?

So contrary to what's his name saying today that Nike's stock is being hammered it is up today by 0.52 and in no time that 3% loss will be wiped out. Nike made a smart move both from the marketing side and the investor side. So all those youtube videos of a pair of Nike shoes burning are cute but... So What.
Click to expand...

Btw, I couldn't argue with anything you've written above. Unfortunately.

But it does strike me as an admission of a vapid, amoral and destructive business model. (Which again, from a sweatshop company; what a surprise.)

When I mentioned collateral damage, Nike doesn't care that it perpetuates/reinforces a myth, and thus a percentage of yet another generation of black youth will grow up with a chip on their shoulder retarding their success. What Nike cares about is brand-loyaty, which translates to profit.

For cripes sake, a shoe is practically a commodity for 75% of Americans. Every time another percentage point stops giving a damn, it removes justification for $100+ tennis shoes.

I found a style of New Balance that I like, ordered 5 pair at a good price, and haven't shoe-shopped in years.

Point is, I don't think Nike's motivations are something to celebrate or boast about unless you're the most ruthless, amoral capitalist ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Toolmanmike
We've Lost Leanna Lynn Johnson (cudachick1968)
Replies
6
Views
496
Toolmanmike
Toolmanmike
marty mopar
Grateful Dead live shows...all of them and this one below...Grateful Dead Live at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium on 1973-06-10
Replies
3
Views
278
cuda hunter
cuda hunter
Rusty Muffler
This rubber trunk mat available for my 57 Belvedere?
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Finsinthemirror
Finsinthemirror
K
  • Locked
For Sale 20 inch 7-blade fan #3462186
Replies
0
Views
448
kyle340
K
67valiant 100
1970 Newark "F" Assembly Plant Cars
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
67valiant 100
67valiant 100
Back
Top