"I support freedom of speech and hate police brutality" - Kaepernick while wearing a Castro shirt. You can't fix stupid.
Nike and Kaepernick
- Thread starter gamecockcat
- Start date
- Status
Wrong. As usual. The players have clauses in their contracts which specifically prevent them from taking action which has a negative impact on the league. Tebow’s kneeing didn’t have a negative impact on the NFL. The player protests have had a huge negative PR and economic impact on the league. This is a business decision.
I was never talking about what the government can or can't do. The government, unless you work for the government, as nothing to do with you as an employee in the private sector. Yes, I know, there are exceptions to that but they are limited and specific. My original statement was correct, you have no right to free speech at work if you work in the private sector.
So why is the league allowing it? What are they afraid of? A lawsuit perhaps? And why would that be?
Also, wouldn't a strike have a negative impact on the NFL? And players are allowed to strike, no? And said striking can occur during "business" hours and outside of NFL offices, arenas, and properties, no?
So which part was wrong? I'll wait.........
Tebow's kneeling did cause some issues, particularly among teammates at one point. It also wasn't popular among some fans. However, regardless the NFL never would have been able to touch it because of religious freedoms.
She didn't say he would kneel, his friend did in the other link I posted. She did say he would support the right of Kaepernick and what he is doing. Seems pretty supportive of what I wrote.
Except on college campuses. CK is capitalizing on his choice and making millions from it. He is also using Nike to promote a platform that he believes in. That also is much better, imo, than using the NFL as a platform to protest (his former place of business) and makes more sense to do so through Nike.
It is also important to point out the discrepancies in social justice "identity politics" acrobatics that attempt to obscure some of the facts about companies and the people they choose to be the face of their advertising strategy. Nike is well known for their low wages and 70-80 hour work weeks in the Far East countries. Some would say that these folks are getting job opportunities that they would not normally get. Others may look at that and say that they are being exploited.
In this culture, at this particular time in history, we need to return to the arena where ideas are shared, respected and analyzed, not censured - with those presenting opposing views slandered and debased instead of welcomed to the debate. I think the back and forth is good and hopefully, will remain civil in tone and respectful in discussion.
His friend is guessing. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, but since he was never exposed to the controversy, no one could say for sure, not even his wife.
Do I need to explain this to you? I guess I do. The strike is a direct employment related issue. The kneeling has ZERO to do with player employment. Can you comprehend that? Apples and oranges. As far as bringing a lawsuit to kneel is hilarious. There is no standing to bring a lawsuit to kneel on employer property and employer time. The owners and the lawyers aren’t worried about that at all. Once again, this is a business decision. The same way players are not allowed to place stickers on their helmets or jerseys for causes they support. This really isn’t complicated.
They are trying to straddle the fence between fans who hate the protests and the players/fans who support the protests.
Where did I deflect? I never said I have an issue with them exercising a right? I just took issue with their reasoning and solution. It was their right to do whatever they wanted, but it seems ignorant and incredibly disrespectful to use the military as your argument for doing so while disrespecting and totally shitting on that same military's potential needs.
You've obviously aligned yourself on one side of this argument, whether on purpose or not. Don't try to deflect that in hopes of maintaining some false level of neutrality or indifference on the matter to attempt to circumvent your less than stable argument.
Last edited:
Again, both situations are similar in some regards and interesting case studies.
Both could have extended their careers. Neither wanted to take the alternate options. In the case of Tebow, he didn't want to be anything other than QB. It seems to me Kap wasn't interested in being a back up or taking less money.
An interesting question at this point for Nike is, why isn't Tebow in the campaign? Dude is a well known and influential athlete who did some controversial things and took some serious heat.
Would have really helped them balance the scales and appeal to an even broader demographic.
Less that stable argument. Lol. I have simply said this is a business decision. It doesn’t matter how you or I feel about whether kneeling is wrong or right because how you or I feel is irrelevant to the basic premise- the NFL can tell players they can’t kneel during the national anthem on employer property. It’s a simple business decision. I fully support breast cancer awareness but I realize the NFL can tell players they can’t put pink stickers in support of it on their helmets and jerseys except during specific games the NFL designates.
I don't recall empty seats on game day(s) and declining TV ratings over Tebow's 'kneeling'.
So you have no proof then? That's what I figured. Just a lot of mouth and hot air.
If you have proof then show it.
You seem to forget what you're writing. Allow me to help jog the old noodle.
"No it doesn’t. The players have zero right to protest on employer property or during their employment hours. The players are free to express their beliefs on their own time."
Now you're saying they can strike, which is contrary to your initial argument and exactly what I pointed out to you. Also, you seem to be steering clear of that Tebow issue I am pointing out. He was also free to kneel on religious grounds. Regardless of impact to the NFL. Again, against your argument.
Of course their is a lawsuit, it's called discrimination. No guarantee he wins, but that ultimately isn't what would matter and the precise reason the NFL is avoiding it.
I'll agree, it's not hard at all. You just seem to be overcomplicating it.
There wasn’t. The vast majority of people who had a problem with it don’t watch football. They are too busy knitting their ****** hats.
Wow. That is all I can say. Striking is an employment related issue. Kneeling isn’t. Apples and oranges. Tebow’s kneeling didn’t cause a huge decline in ratings or affect the bottomline. Once again, it’s a business decision. And not allowing kneeling during games now falls under discrimination? LMAO. It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.
I haven't argued this. I agree, the NFL can tell them they can't, but they also know there could be certain risk associated with this, and a (or several) lawsuit/s is one of them. My issue isn't with NIKE, the NFL, Kaepernick, Trump, Obama, Clinton or any other person we want to mention. I question these people that claim to be pro military and USA, essentially being against peoples 1st amendment right and then destroying clothing and shoes the people they supposedly care so much about could desperately use. And why the flag and SSB are so important to people, yet they tend to know jack-**** about either, particularly their history. It just comes across as something more sinister being masked by talking points and rhetoric. Not saying it is, just how it appears.
Last edited:
How about the triggered idiots who can’t stand the thought of a player across the country thinking differently about America and civil protest than they do?
I swear you’d think these guys were burning flags or something. The beauty of it that you can call other people snowflakes and whatnot without realizing you are just like them.
Pic of your ****** hat perhaps?
Speaking of freedom of speech...it doesn't occur on this site so the people with fuzzy balls can direct the conversation any way they wish. Their prerogative I guess.
Reading comprehension can be your friend. Players have no right to protest on employer property and employer time. If you can’t understand that, that’s clearly your problem.
And the only people wearing ****** hats are liberals. That isn't an opinion- that is a fact. You can google all the pictures you want if you need further evidence.
@Cawood86 I don't think he has been oppressed, at least certainly not from a financial standpoint. Who said he was? But regardless that's never been what this has been about. You do understand that, right? He's always been about using his platform and bringing awareness to police brutality against minority groups, particularly the deaths of black men by police.
He tends to donate his money and time to those who are oppressed. And that is easily evident by the community centers, schools, parks and other community involvement he's contributed to and been apart of. It's not hard to verify if you know how to use Google. You familiar with that?
I would imagine from his bank account, which was flush after working his off to make it to the NFL.
He tends to donate his money and time to those who are oppressed. And that is easily evident by the community centers, schools, parks and other community involvement he's contributed to and been apart of. It's not hard to verify if you know how to use Google. You familiar with that?
I would imagine from his bank account, which was flush after working his off to make it to the NFL.
Last edited:
If you agree the NFL can, then you and I have no argument. Whether it’s right or not is irrelevant and it boils down to a business decision made by the NFL. The same right Nike has to making an ad campaign about CK. Whether is it is smart decision or not doesn’t change that fact it was a business decision by Nike.
So then, why did you say "No it doesn’t. The players have zero right to protest on employer property or during their employment hours. The players are free to express their beliefs on their own time." Striking is an employment related issue as you pointed out, which is a right the players have, no? I'm sorry you didn't articulate yourself clearly and got called out for it, but just admit you misspoke or were wrong and move on.
Tebow did to a degree, but it was also protected by religious freedoms, yes or no? Again, something you claimed that players had zero right to. Again, that would be incorrect.
They would have a case that we both know would make it before a court somewhere. Never said he would win in the court of law, but public perception would be worse than any legal damage to the NFL, which is one reason they are backing off.
The sheer irony is his speaking how great Cuba’s brain washed education system was under Castro, a muderous oppressive tyrant. It clearly shows he isn’t very intelligent or hasn’t done his homework or both. I wonder if he is going to try to get Nike to stop employing people in their sweat shops to help pay his contract? Probably not.
We're essentially saying the same damn thing, not even sure why we're arguing about it.
Wasn't he comparing their literacy to incarceration rates against that of the US? And he also only commended Castro's meeting with MalcomX and his willingness to have a dialogue. I don't think he was identifying some great guy. However, I remember you commending Trump earlier. How did you feel about his descriptions of Putin and Kim Jong?
I made myself perfectly clear on striking vs. kneeling. Tebow wasn’t told to stop because the NFL didn’t think it was a huge controversial issue- once again, it boils down to a business decision by the owners. They didn’t care about Tebow kneeling- they do care about the players kneeling because of the economic consequences.
The players would have no chance in a court of law and it would be summarily dismissed on sound legal grounds.
Literacy rates may have been high in Nazi Germany. So what?
As far as Trump’s comments that he hopes he can work with both leaders? Which comments?
Mr Trump lauded Mr Kim as a “tough guy” who had demonstrated his prowess by inheriting power as a young man.
“Hey, when you take over a country - tough country, tough people - and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have - if you could do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that”, said Mr Trump, who is himself the scion of a powerful family.
“So he’s a very smart guy,” Mr Trump added. “He’s a great negotiator”.
Pressed by Mr Baier, who said Mr Kim has “done some really bad things”, Mr Trump responded that “so have a lot of other people”.
He's hung off Putin's nuts so hard I don't even know where to begin. But we will just go with all the times he's called Putin great, a terrific leader, brilliant and so forth.
- Status