POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
ESSENTIAL OILS!!!!! So essential to LIFE and HAPPINESS!!!!
How many slaves did cops kill?
Seems like there be some pretty pissed off plantation owners if cops were out riding around murdering their slaves.
Same with Chad Johnson. Even the Bengals didn't want the distraction he brought.
Heh. Insert exploding heads GIF.
If you believe this was a good business decision buy Nike stock right now, otherwise this is just a political discussion which we all know we will have to agree to disagree on.
I would like to adopt this business plan for myself.
How often are dad/granddad going clothes shopping for the kids/grandkids? It's usually mom/grandma who 9 times out of 10 couldn't pick CK out of a 1 man lineup nor do they care about his politics. It isn't about you it's about what the kid wants. If the kid wants Nike then guess what mom/grandma is buying? You just get to write the check when the credit card bill comes due.
Best boss I ever had was a complete a$$ in general, but if you did your job and did it well he was your biggest supporter. There were times I hated his guts, but he made me become very good at what I do and when it was time to move up the ladder he was my biggest cheerleader. Would not be where I am today without him. Some people can grow a pair and do what it takes to get the job done and others hide in the corner when the going gets tough and a lot if expected of them. My guess is if you work hard and are loyal Trump will do what he can to help you, but be the opposite and he can be your worst enemy.
And Al Sharpton. I have more respect for Farrakhan than Sharpton. Farrakhan is open and vocal about his hatred of the white devils. Sharpton just uses them.
If you want a classic example of what a joke Politifact is, read this article from last year about the origins of the KKK, which Politifact claimed the KKK starting out as the 'military arm' of the Democratic Party as "false."
It's always some play on words.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...ing-claim-kkk-was-founded-military-arm-democ/
Debunking the claim that "The KKK was founded as the military arm of the Democratic Party."
The Aug. 25, 2017 release went on to cite various historical instances where Democrats opposed civil rights initiatives, ending the list with this assertion: "The KKK was founded as the military arm of the Democratic Party."
When asked to back up the party’s claim, Grabins said the history of the Klan is well-known and cited the History.com website’s entry on the KKK.
Let’s go to the history books.
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.
James Marten, an author and chairman of the history department at Marquette University, disputed the Dane County GOP claim the Klan was "founded" as the military arm of the Democratic party.
"It was at its simplest a secret fraternal organization, but it very quickly became an organization dedicated to preserving white supremacy and intimidating African Americans," he said. "They and other groups like them broke up schools, torched houses, and interfered with black social and church gatherings.
"And, along with those other groups as well as individuals and gangs, committed thousands of acts of terror, violence, and murder throughout the South. However, the early Klan — the founding generation of the Klan — really only lasted into the 1870s before it was driven underground, and it was not an overtly political organization."
Eric Foner, a Columbia University history professor, noted the Klan was a "military force."
"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy," he said. "Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society."
But serving the interests of the party is not the same as being part of the party. Consider the political landscape today, where super PACs and other entities work outside the formal party structure.
In a June 10, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia article, Carole Emberton, associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, noted that the "party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today."
"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said. "By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."
^ Total BS. The "big switch" is a total lie and has been debunked several times but Democrats need to try and pin their sins on others.
But you see how they took the simple notion and truth that the KKK was started by Democrats and were for Democrats political causes, even getting rebooted after "Birth of a Nation" which Woodrow Wilson showed in the White House.
FDR, the Democrats favorite president ever (maybe other than Obama now) appointed Hugo Black to the SCOTUS, a former KKK member and to get the New Deal passed, had to promise to not pass anti lynching legislation. . And of course, you all know about Robert Byrd and company. D'Souza does a great job at showing how ridiculous the claim of the cops just decided to become the robbers and the robbers decided to be cops was.
BTW, the black vote didn't start to transition to the Dem Party after the 60s It was already going that way after FDR's New Deal.
It's always some play on words.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...ing-claim-kkk-was-founded-military-arm-democ/
Debunking the claim that "The KKK was founded as the military arm of the Democratic Party."
The Aug. 25, 2017 release went on to cite various historical instances where Democrats opposed civil rights initiatives, ending the list with this assertion: "The KKK was founded as the military arm of the Democratic Party."
When asked to back up the party’s claim, Grabins said the history of the Klan is well-known and cited the History.com website’s entry on the KKK.
Let’s go to the history books.
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.
James Marten, an author and chairman of the history department at Marquette University, disputed the Dane County GOP claim the Klan was "founded" as the military arm of the Democratic party.
"It was at its simplest a secret fraternal organization, but it very quickly became an organization dedicated to preserving white supremacy and intimidating African Americans," he said. "They and other groups like them broke up schools, torched houses, and interfered with black social and church gatherings.
"And, along with those other groups as well as individuals and gangs, committed thousands of acts of terror, violence, and murder throughout the South. However, the early Klan — the founding generation of the Klan — really only lasted into the 1870s before it was driven underground, and it was not an overtly political organization."
Eric Foner, a Columbia University history professor, noted the Klan was a "military force."
"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy," he said. "Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society."
But serving the interests of the party is not the same as being part of the party. Consider the political landscape today, where super PACs and other entities work outside the formal party structure.
In a June 10, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia article, Carole Emberton, associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, noted that the "party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today."
"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said. "By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."
^ Total BS. The "big switch" is a total lie and has been debunked several times but Democrats need to try and pin their sins on others.
But you see how they took the simple notion and truth that the KKK was started by Democrats and were for Democrats political causes, even getting rebooted after "Birth of a Nation" which Woodrow Wilson showed in the White House.
FDR, the Democrats favorite president ever (maybe other than Obama now) appointed Hugo Black to the SCOTUS, a former KKK member and to get the New Deal passed, had to promise to not pass anti lynching legislation. . And of course, you all know about Robert Byrd and company. D'Souza does a great job at showing how ridiculous the claim of the cops just decided to become the robbers and the robbers decided to be cops was.
BTW, the black vote didn't start to transition to the Dem Party after the 60s It was already going that way after FDR's New Deal.
Good god, 15-21 Supreme Court Justices would be a nightmare. And once you add justices or change the makeup of the court once...the other side will try to add more when it gets in power, it would start a process of continually trying to tinker with the court or pack the court for political purposes. Our system isn’t perfect but it is about as perfect as we can make it. The problem with making changes to some very fundamental institutions is...politicians of both parties will constantly be engaged in re-writing the rules.
You don't become a successful billionaire in the private sector (especially when you rely on your mind and business sense and not your hands-referring to a soon to be billionaire athlete) without busting balls. You can't try to be everyone's friend and let people run over you. You have to be a "killer."
I remember in an 80s interview I saw of Trump, he mentioned about how he gets along more with cab drivers, construction workers, blue collar types because he was in competition with the "elites." Over 30 years later and nothing has changed.
You think Dads are the only ones upset? You are either totally out of touch or sexist if you do. I saw a lot of adult females posting about this yesterday on social media and even some male and female teenagers.
I don't understand why they think he is only out because of his stance when there are still players taking a knee, raising their fist or staying in the locker room during the anthem but still playing. It isn't about his stance it is that he just isn't as good as you guys want to think. If he could help a team he would be playing. NFL owners would play ISIS soldiers if they could get them to a Super Bowl.
Do kids also want/care about a so-so QB who isn't currently playing? Are they going to buy the CK shirts and shoes that we aren't even sure their favorite athletes will wear?
You can't market around a player that isn't good.. no matter if he stands for something greater. That doesn't sell.
Aside from publicity, don't see how Nike can turn CK into some profit. A profit that also offsets any lost earnings due to backlash.
Dude, NKE on 8/31/18 hit their all time high @ 83.58 and they fell back to 79.60 yesterday. They are up over $80 today in an overall down market day. Back at the end of June it rose 10% in one day...I don't recall anyone writing Nike's obituary on that day.
I own some NKE and I'm not selling...I'm not buying either because I think it's over-valued after climbing nearly 60% in the last 12 months...150% in the last 5 years...375% in the last 10 years. If you're a day trader then you might be concerned...otherwise it has well outperformed the market for a long, long time.
I'll just refer you to my last post. The folks at Nike have a pretty good track record when it comes to marketing. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
Feinstein concerned about the future of "viable fetuses"....oof
The point is that NFL teams have scraped the bottom of the barrel looking for QBs signing some guys with not half the talent of CK. There is an obvious collusion among owners not to sign him and that will soon be proven in court. You can say "he isn't good" but he is indisputably better than more than half of the 50 QBs that have been signed since he was a free agent.
Too bad our useless cuck AG doesn't have Feinstein concerned about the future of people who willfully employed Chinese spies.
Dallas police need to arrest Chuck Todd...liberal mindset.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/car-ra...ss-host-calls-to-fight-back-against-fox-news/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/car-ra...ss-host-calls-to-fight-back-against-fox-news/
The gift that keeps on giving...
They don’t have to hire anyone Fuzz. There is no right to be an NFL QB, and if they thought he’d help their team he’d be on a team.
The benefit he may or may not have is outweighed by his cons.
"Tons" is not a stat unless you are talking about coal or ore.
"right to an abortion"
It really can't get any more clear than that
It really can't get any more clear than that
Kapernick is a dumbass...a very brilliant dumbass. A mediocre washed up qb that would have been forgotten in a few years has now made his name in sports history forever. Smart.
Nike hitting their all time high doesn't mean much when most companies are hitting their all time high. I don't think a one-off ad campaign with CK is going to do them in but they tried something new, took a political stance and they were met with backlash.
If tshirts and shoes of a failed athlete don't sell (as I'm predicting), Nike won't wait long to scrap this idea. A 3% dip SIMPLY for putting CK on an ad campaign should alarm any company that's willing to take a political stance PROVIDED(*) they continue down that road.
*Yes, I get other companies made one-off political moves, this is a bit different.
According to who? Not NFL owners but I guess a guy on a UK message board knows more than they do. Why aren't those other guys out of the NFL then? CK was never as good as he or some of his fans thought he was. He had a couple of good seasons thanks to the people around him.
I’m sure the book is filled with conjecture and exaggeration and I won’t read it nor should anyone take it at face value. That phone convo with Woodward was hilarious though.
I don't think it's collusion. I'm not sure why 30 owners would ban together to keep this guy out of the league when plenty of others are taking up his fight, to varying degrees.
I do think they each, individually, want no part in CK as he has become the face of a lot of this. He's talent, or lack there of, doesn't out-weigh the headache. Had he been better, a top15 guy.. i believe he'd be playing now.
Kamala Harris is such a giant POS. Same woman who slept her way to the top.
Her little stunt of interrupting before the chairman could even finish the first sentence continues to show that they’re the party of stunts and lack civility.
Her little stunt of interrupting before the chairman could even finish the first sentence continues to show that they’re the party of stunts and lack civility.
Go look at Tim Couch's stats compared to Kaepernick's stats. They are very similar with the exception that Couch had more interceptions. Most consider Couch to be one of the biggest bust in the NFL despite the fact he played on a newly formed team that was horrible but claim Kaepernick, who played on a Super Bowl team for part of his time, should be an NFL starter even though they have similar stats. Just FYI Couch only made it 5 years in the league and CK made it 6 so maybe he just wasn't as good as some thought.
Yeah...Nike running shoes are dog ish for actually running in. Any semi-serious runner will tell you that. But they sell a lot of running shoes to non-runners just for casual wear.
~~~also~~~
Here is an example of what I was talking about yesterday regarding temporary stock decline and loss of market share...
I was talking to a neighbor of mine this morning (lives about a mile down the road and needed to borrow my chain saw). He is an Airforce Vet (and his dad is a Vietnam Vet) and he is currently a UPS pilot and is also anti-Kap (so is his dad). He has a wife, 3 sons (including an adopted son from Somalia), and a daughter. Cool guy who is always willing to help out a neighbor and our daughters are friends.
After discussing the inevitable demise of this year's Cats football team and the inevitable certainty of hanging #9 in Rupp this season...(already knowing his anti-Kap position) I turned the conversation to the Kap Nike campaign. This is what he said...
They haven't bought their new school shoes yet this year and all 4 kids play multiple sports. They have almost exclusively bought Nike shoes in the past...except to run in...because they too know that Nike running shoes are dog ish to run in.
Anyway...here is what Nike is about to lose in sales this year from just his household due to the new Kap campaign...
Kids...
4 - pairs of school shoes (at least...sometimes one or more of the kids will outgrow their shoes during the school year)
3 - pairs of basketball shoes
1 - pair of cheerleading shoes
3 - pairs of baseball cleats
1 - pair of tennis shoes (to actually play tennis)
??? - gear
Parents...
2 - pairs of running shoes (just for casual wear)
2 - pairs of tennis shoes (to actually play tennis)
??? - gear
He's not an idiot so they aren't burning shoes and clothes. But...
For those keeping score at home...that's 16 pairs of shoes...from one household...lost to the competition. Add on whatever sports gear they may purchase (now from a competitor) and that's a pretty big hit from just one household alone.
Drop in the bucket for a corporate giant like Nike? Yes. But add in a few hundred thousand other similar households and it starts to add up.
~~~also~~~
^^^^^ This is actually a good post. (Dog shines on a dogs azz every now and again and whatnot. Hahahaha) And you have the right position on the stock long term.
But the next big temporary dip (and there will be a few) in the stock will be after the report on the 25th...mostly due to people like my neighbor described above and a decline in expected future sales thereafter. The next big dip after that will be after or slightly before their January report if that sales pattern continues through the holidays...which I expect it to do so on some level. Historically Nike has huge gear sales at Christmas. Will be interesting to see how far that drops off this year. Nike hasn't made any official announcements yet but the smart bet is that they will have at least part of the Kap gear line in place by then to counterbalance. If not...they should.
But like I said yesterday, this too shall pass and Nike as a corporate giant with their huge market share will march on. But they may lose a little overall share of the marketplace...especially in gear...which is an area they have already been loosing some ground in to UA anyway. Probably part of the reason they decided to move forward on the Kap campaign in the first place.
~~~also~~~
Here is an example of what I was talking about yesterday regarding temporary stock decline and loss of market share...
I was talking to a neighbor of mine this morning (lives about a mile down the road and needed to borrow my chain saw). He is an Airforce Vet (and his dad is a Vietnam Vet) and he is currently a UPS pilot and is also anti-Kap (so is his dad). He has a wife, 3 sons (including an adopted son from Somalia), and a daughter. Cool guy who is always willing to help out a neighbor and our daughters are friends.
After discussing the inevitable demise of this year's Cats football team and the inevitable certainty of hanging #9 in Rupp this season...(already knowing his anti-Kap position) I turned the conversation to the Kap Nike campaign. This is what he said...
They haven't bought their new school shoes yet this year and all 4 kids play multiple sports. They have almost exclusively bought Nike shoes in the past...except to run in...because they too know that Nike running shoes are dog ish to run in.
Anyway...here is what Nike is about to lose in sales this year from just his household due to the new Kap campaign...
Kids...
4 - pairs of school shoes (at least...sometimes one or more of the kids will outgrow their shoes during the school year)
3 - pairs of basketball shoes
1 - pair of cheerleading shoes
3 - pairs of baseball cleats
1 - pair of tennis shoes (to actually play tennis)
??? - gear
Parents...
2 - pairs of running shoes (just for casual wear)
2 - pairs of tennis shoes (to actually play tennis)
??? - gear
He's not an idiot so they aren't burning shoes and clothes. But...
For those keeping score at home...that's 16 pairs of shoes...from one household...lost to the competition. Add on whatever sports gear they may purchase (now from a competitor) and that's a pretty big hit from just one household alone.
Drop in the bucket for a corporate giant like Nike? Yes. But add in a few hundred thousand other similar households and it starts to add up.
~~~also~~~
^^^^^ This is actually a good post. (Dog shines on a dogs azz every now and again and whatnot. Hahahaha) And you have the right position on the stock long term.
But the next big temporary dip (and there will be a few) in the stock will be after the report on the 25th...mostly due to people like my neighbor described above and a decline in expected future sales thereafter. The next big dip after that will be after or slightly before their January report if that sales pattern continues through the holidays...which I expect it to do so on some level. Historically Nike has huge gear sales at Christmas. Will be interesting to see how far that drops off this year. Nike hasn't made any official announcements yet but the smart bet is that they will have at least part of the Kap gear line in place by then to counterbalance. If not...they should.
But like I said yesterday, this too shall pass and Nike as a corporate giant with their huge market share will march on. But they may lose a little overall share of the marketplace...especially in gear...which is an area they have already been loosing some ground in to UA anyway. Probably part of the reason they decided to move forward on the Kap campaign in the first place.
Exactly.
CK's QBR went from 7th in 2013 to 16th (2014) to 29th (2015) to 23rd (2016). If he had kept up his 2013 performance, probably even 2014, he'd still be playing, but when you drop into the lower 3rd of the league and then add the distractions from the protest into the equation and then you want to be paid like a starter and won't entertain offers to be a backup, you get what you get.
Couch was brought into a horrible situation(1st year of rebooted Browns) while Kap was traded to a team with 8 straight non winning seasons and a new head coach.. Kap had the luxury of sitting a year while Couch was thrown into an inferno. Fair or not, Couch is considered a bust due to being drafted #1...Kap 36th. A few more interceptions? Couch threw 67 int in 62(59st) games...Kap threw 30 int in 69(58st) games. Couch tossed 64 td to Kap 72td. Couch rushed for 556 yds and 2 TD...Kap 2300 yds and 13 TD.One was a pocket QB..the other dual-threat. they are not similar.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Vince Marrow on his way to one of his best classes- Latest: HoptownCat93
-
-
-
-
