ADVERTISEMENT

Colin Kaepernick and Nike at it again

Isn’t that enough reason for him to stand and honor those men and women who died WEARING the very flag he protests?

In your opinion yes. It's enough in my opinion FOR ME. There were many Americans historically that have chosen to not honor the flag because it wasn't honoring what it stood for. Peaceful protest is in the very fabric of that flag and when the ideals we start it stands for isn't bring met to that person's ideal they have the American right to stand against it peacefully. This very behavior by citizens had been the root of change throughout history. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Veterans themselves have protested the very flag they fight for because they felt it's behavior wasn't matching the standard we set.

Idol worship is the problem. The people are the flag not some song or fabric. Nationalism is the problem also. That's the real danger IMO.
 
I'll check that out when I can. I always believed that it was an official thing. Sherman had the power to make that order so I understood and it should've been binding. In any case it was quickly found to not hold water for reasons I'm sure I'll find when reading that link.

I guess the slaves expected some honest and fair treatment. Yes I'm laughing. Again, my whole point in mentioning this makes this very interesting but largely irrelevant. I appreciate the education. Really I do. If you go back and read my initial mention of it it was only to point out that the idea or thought of reparations is not an original one by those asking for it now. People love to blame millennials or this new soft generation for everything. Only pointing out that this wasn't their doing. Definitely going to educate myself with that link tho. Thanks.

Its a good article and an even better series.

My only point was that it wasn't designed as some repayment for past wrongs or some underpinning for reparations today. It may be symbolic or a rallying cry, but it wasn't a foundational thought or promise beyond some local population. If that land didn't have military value or the cooperation of the freed slaves didn't have military value, the order would have never been issued. It may have been sold as a payment, but it was so that the US military could control the intercoastal waterway from Georgia through South Carolina. I had forgotten that the mule was basically sharing a military mule and was a throw in so that the freed slaves would house and feed the mule.

There have been similar orders issued during other wars as well, especially in areas that the winner didn't intent to occupy post conflict. Hell, half the middle east issues are related to Great Britain returning occupied land to the wrong owner.
 
LOL. You pretended like you didn't care and accused me of being afraid of change. Sure.
source.gif
 
In your opinion yes. It's enough in my opinion FOR ME. There were many Americans historically that have chosen to not honor the flag because it wasn't honoring what it stood for. Peaceful protest is in the very fabric of that flag and when the ideals we start it stands for isn't bring met to that person's ideal they have the American right to stand against it peacefully. This very behavior by citizens had been the root of change throughout history. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Veterans themselves have protested the very flag they fight for because they felt it's behavior wasn't matching the standard we set.

Idol worship is the problem. The people are the flag not some song or fabric. Nationalism is the problem also. That's the real danger IMO.

What exactly do you mean by Nationalism? The racist BS sure (that’s not actually nationalism), but putting your country above others is just good business. You think China or Russia have our best interest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yuthgi
What exactly do you mean by Nationalism? The racist BS sure (that’s not actually nationalism), but putting your country above others is just good business. You think China or Russia have our best interest?

Racism and nationalism are two different words with two clearly different meanings. You don't have to ask me what they mean. C'mon.

If you think rooting for your country is nationalism I don't know what to say.
 
You just keep proving me point ITT

You have said your done like multiple times yet you keep on coming back.
You're right about one thing, that I keep coming back. I have a hard time ignoring people when they are speaking to me. I keep hoping ya'll will just stop replying lol.

As for my intellectual dishonesty, you're wrong. If you look at my second post, I clearly stated that this ongoing pissing match triggers me, which is dumb on my part. It was dumb of me to get involved in this thread. I simply wish that all of you could not get so worked up about things that don't matter, and that was my mistake. You're not me. You must truly care about these shoes, which is why I told you to keep fighting the good fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCTigerette
In your opinion yes. It's enough in my opinion FOR ME. There were many Americans historically that have chosen to not honor the flag because it wasn't honoring what it stood for. Peaceful protest is in the very fabric of that flag and when the ideals we start it stands for isn't bring met to that person's ideal they have the American right to stand against it peacefully. This very behavior by citizens had been the root of change throughout history. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Veterans themselves have protested the very flag they fight for because they felt it's behavior wasn't matching the standard we set.

Idol worship is the problem. The people are the flag not some song or fabric. Nationalism is the problem also. That's the real danger IMO.
So since you and I agree that the flag symbolizes the PEOPLE, people who gave and bled and died, aren't those people worth standing for? Or does the flag REALLY symbolize the flying pigs depicted on his socks he wore to protest dirty cops ( or was it cops everywhere he was protesting?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChicagoTiger85
guess you can't wear a castro t shirt, but I suppose you support Trump calling Kim Jung Un a friend and great leader
It’s one thing to glorify a foreign dictator as a rock star while shitting on your own country...

It’s another to try & make peace with another thus ending nuclear proliferation & thwarting potential catastrophe for our nation...

If you can’t see the difference, then I can’t help you...
 
Racism and nationalism are two different words with two clearly different meanings. You don't have to ask me what they mean. C'mon.

If you think rooting for your country is nationalism I don't know what to say.

Funny that is exactly what nationalism means to mean. Pride in ones country, not whatever BS the media and politicians say in order to silence us when the sell out to China and other countries like Iran
 
Nothing more predictable than this ONE ACT (kap asking Nike to pull a shoe) causing the overloads of thought, strategy, and opinion absolutely WASTED to protect a bs political view. We’re a f$ckin shame of a nation.

Not a shot at Kap Nike, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, or whatever label. Shots fired at Homo sapiens
 
Kapernik was just a normal athlete until he began dating that racist socialist higher up with BLM. booty is his motivation, not the betterment of blacks. He is a low in pawn of the BLM movement that is funded by a crusty old white man who’s fortune was made stealing the belongings off Jews just before extermination.
 
Some people are so stupid. His failure to stand during the National Anthem had zero to do with police brutality. He hates America and believes ir to be a racist country. Tried telling people this alk the time. Well....proff here!
Hes a communist radical. Lets just tell the truth.
Coincidentally he started kneeling not long after converting to Islam, has nothing to do with police brutality as you said.
 
People do make an idol of the flag and there are few words more misused than the word, patriotism. All that being said, I support his right to do whatever floats his boat as long as he supports mine to tell him that he's a freaking moron of epic proportions. He is intellectually dishonest, he doesn't understand a lot about much of anything and he's created a space for his own wealth and empowerment in this country off the lamentations of a lot of very bitter fruit from our past. He's a slime ball who gets celebrated by the village idiots in his tribe. We have them on all sides now and it's truly sad. Stupidity is the leading agent of change in American these days. Kaepernick is a leading agent of this group.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: clemmer
So since you and I agree that the flag symbolizes the PEOPLE, people who gave and bled and died, aren't those people worth standing for? Or does the flag REALLY symbolize the flying pigs depicted on his socks he wore to protest dirty cops ( or was it cops everywhere he was protesting?).

As someone says earlier you're not going to change your mind and I'm ok with that and I'm almost done. I will say this. How he feels about police is his business and based on his experiences. And he mentioned specifically dirty cops. Did anyone locate the company that makes those socks? You have a problem with them? I'm sure the market for those socks exist beyond him.

Those people that died did so to preserve your right to kneel. Do you get that? Again, it's what makes us unique. Historically we've challenged this country with protest of the government, law enforcement, the flag, etc. We've had tremendous change as a result.
There are veterans that have come out and said they encourage civil disobedience and some of them historically have refused to stand.

Loving the country doesn't require blindly accepting the things you don't agree with. The founding fathers put in place a system that will always include a populace that will forever be unafraid to stand in direct opposition to the flag and government. Our soldiers died so that right remains. You using the right of PEACEFUL protest against that very flag holds it accountable and honored why they died. But you don't want to hear that because you see it as somehow not loving or betraying your country. Loving your country or family or whatever means holding it accountable to what it said it was.
 
Funny that is exactly what nationalism means to mean. Pride in ones country, not whatever BS the media and politicians say in order to silence us when the sell out to China and other countries like Iran

Except that's not what it means. That's funny tho. Many in this thread would agree and it has zero to do with what the media says or crooked politicians say. There is an actual definition. It's not just pride in ones country. But you do you. I'm good.
 
Except that's not what it means. That's funny tho. Many in this thread would agree and it has zero to do with what the media says or crooked politicians say. There is an actual definition. It's not just pride in ones country. But you do you. I'm good.

No, it isn't pride in one's country. But it also isn't the bad word that it is made out to be in the media and in certain political circles. We can argue about the dangers of nationalist policies but earlier you said racism and nationalism are two different things. While you're 100% correct, I hope you'd admit that isn't how the media has used the term and the connotations they apply when using that term.
 
So since you and I agree that the flag symbolizes the PEOPLE, people who gave and bled and died, aren't those people worth standing for? Or does the flag REALLY symbolize the flying pigs depicted on his socks he wore to protest dirty cops ( or was it cops everywhere he was protesting?).

The difference in thinking can be boiled down to reformism vs.radicalism. Those who are reformists believe the ideals of the American constitution are good ones, and that the American system of government is adequate for the problems we face. They believe our system of government gives them the tools they need to improve things, so they work within the system. Reformists tend to have more respect for institutions, and to take part in institutional roles. A reformist may never think we're living up to our ideals, but he'll appeal to those ideals in order to get where he wants to go. So he wouldn't see any problem with honoring national symbols while disagreeing with leadership, or with certain policies.

Radicals believe the American constitution is fundamentally corrupt, and that therefore fundamental changes are needed to face the problems radicals see. They don't believe the institutions we've set up can improve things, and they may even think our institutions are intended to oppress certain people. Since they believe the whole system is corrupt, they don't feel any need to respect our institutions, and tend to work outside of established ways of doing things. A radical thinks things are set up against them, and that the only way to get where he wants to go is to challenge and change ideals. A radical sees the problems in their world as being fundamentally connected to their society, so they can't honor the symbols of that society as long as those problems exist.

There are times and places where radicalism or reformism are more appropriate. Americans have tended to be more reformist, hence the long-standing Constitution and the lack of a revolutionary political movement throughout most of its history. But, of course, I think anybody who doesn't want to make an idol of their country needs to be open to the idea that it may have been founded in a corrupt ideology. For better or for worse (I think for the worse), radicalism seems to be increasing in popularity, on both the right (among some on the "alt-right" and among some post-liberal Catholics) and the left (among those influenced by critical theory and radical feminism, which animate the "social justice warriors"). Take a look at the trend in patriotic feeling for evidence of this: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gallup-democrats-drive-u-s-patriotism-plunge/

"Republican national pride has been consistent, Gallup finds. The 76 percent of Republicans who expressed extreme pride in the latest survey is 10 points off the high of 86 percent in 2003. “Even when Barack Obama was in office,” Brenan writes, “Republicans’ extreme pride never fell below 68 percent.”

Fewer Democrats than Republicans have said they had pride in America since the poll question was first asked in 2001. Lately, though, Democratic pride has fallen off a cliff. Just 22 percent of Democrats say they feel extreme pride for their country in the latest survey. That’s half the number recorded prior to the 2016 election. Needless to say, the nature and policies of the forty-fifth president have contributed to the Democratic plunge.

And yet I was also struck by the decline of Democratic “extreme” pride during Barack Obama’s second term. It went from 56 percent in 2013 to 44 percent in 2016. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jwilliamsiii
No, it isn't pride in one's country. But it also isn't the bad word that it is made out to be in the media and in certain political circles. We can argue about the dangers of nationalist policies but earlier you said racism and nationalism are two different things. While you're 100% correct, I hope you'd admit that isn't how the media has used the term and the connotations they apply when using that term.

The good news is neither of us are the media so no point in bringing their definition into our discussion. I said they were two different things. I completely separated the hours of racism from nationalism. Two totally different definition. You said I was 100% correct. You could've stopped there and given me your opinion on what I said. Or like you said we can argue about nationalists policies or why you don't think it's a bad word.

By the way, I despise the media in general. I don't let them define anything for me.
 
The good news is neither of us are the media so no point in bringing their definition into our discussion. I said they were two different things. I completely separated the hours of racism from nationalism. Two totally different definition. You said I was 100% correct. You could've stopped there and given me your opinion on what I said. Or like you said we can argue about nationalists policies or why you don't think it's a bad word.

By the way, I despise the media in general. I don't let them define anything for me.

There are times we disagree, perhaps even quite often but I have respect for your views because they are your views and you clearly thought it through and came to your own conclusion. We need more of that. My point wasn't to argue with you as much as it was to say the problem with so much of what goes on is that people generally believe things that aren't true and don't put much effort into finding the truth. One need look no further than what's going on at the border to see this and how tragic the consequences can be. So while you clearly understand your views, my point was more about the general feelings/level of understanding about what the word nationalism means.
 
The difference in thinking can be boiled down to reformism vs.radicalism. Those who are reformists believe the ideals of the American constitution are good ones, and that the American system of government is adequate for the problems we face. They believe our system of government gives them the tools they need to improve things, so they work within the system. Reformists tend to have more respect for institutions, and to take part in institutional roles. A reformist may never think we're living up to our ideals, but he'll appeal to those ideals in order to get where he wants to go. So he wouldn't see any problem with honoring national symbols while disagreeing with leadership, or with certain policies.

Radicals believe the American constitution is fundamentally corrupt, and that therefore fundamental changes are needed to face the problems radicals see. They don't believe the institutions we've set up can improve things, and they may even think our institutions are intended to oppress certain people. Since they believe the whole system is corrupt, they don't feel any need to respect our institutions, and tend to work outside of established ways of doing things. A radical thinks things are set up against them, and that the only way to get where he wants to go is to challenge and change ideals. A radical sees the problems in their world as being fundamentally connected to their society, so they can't honor the symbols of that society as long as those problems exist.

There are times and places where radicalism or reformism are more appropriate. Americans have tended to be more reformist, hence the long-standing Constitution and the lack of a revolutionary political movement throughout most of its history. But, of course, I think anybody who doesn't want to make an idol of their country needs to be open to the idea that it may have been founded in a corrupt ideology. For better or for worse (I think for the worse), radicalism seems to be increasing in popularity, on both the right (among some on the "alt-right" and among some post-liberal Catholics) and the left (among those influenced by critical theory and radical feminism, which animate the "social justice warriors"). Take a look at the trend in patriotic feeling for evidence of this: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gallup-democrats-drive-u-s-patriotism-plunge/

"Republican national pride has been consistent, Gallup finds. The 76 percent of Republicans who expressed extreme pride in the latest survey is 10 points off the high of 86 percent in 2003. “Even when Barack Obama was in office,” Brenan writes, “Republicans’ extreme pride never fell below 68 percent.”

Fewer Democrats than Republicans have said they had pride in America since the poll question was first asked in 2001. Lately, though, Democratic pride has fallen off a cliff. Just 22 percent of Democrats say they feel extreme pride for their country in the latest survey. That’s half the number recorded prior to the 2016 election. Needless to say, the nature and policies of the forty-fifth president have contributed to the Democratic plunge.

And yet I was also struck by the decline of Democratic “extreme” pride during Barack Obama’s second term. It went from 56 percent in 2013 to 44 percent in 2016. "

I have a great deal of pride in the founding principles behind our nations taken to the fullest intent. I have almost zero pride in what our nation is now and what we stand for. I believe a disgrace and an offense to the hopes and aspirations of those that have paid the ultimate price for freedom and liberty. So I guess I'm a very odd bird indeed.
 
The difference in thinking can be boiled down to reformism vs.radicalism. Those who are reformists believe the ideals of the American constitution are good ones, and that the American system of government is adequate for the problems we face. They believe our system of government gives them the tools they need to improve things, so they work within the system. Reformists tend to have more respect for institutions, and to take part in institutional roles. A reformist may never think we're living up to our ideals, but he'll appeal to those ideals in order to get where he wants to go. So he wouldn't see any problem with honoring national symbols while disagreeing with leadership, or with certain policies.

Radicals believe the American constitution is fundamentally corrupt, and that therefore fundamental changes are needed to face the problems radicals see. They don't believe the institutions we've set up can improve things, and they may even think our institutions are intended to oppress certain people. Since they believe the whole system is corrupt, they don't feel any need to respect our institutions, and tend to work outside of established ways of doing things. A radical thinks things are set up against them, and that the only way to get where he wants to go is to challenge and change ideals. A radical sees the problems in their world as being fundamentally connected to their society, so they can't honor the symbols of that society as long as those problems exist.

There are times and places where radicalism or reformism are more appropriate. Americans have tended to be more reformist, hence the long-standing Constitution and the lack of a revolutionary political movement throughout most of its history. But, of course, I think anybody who doesn't want to make an idol of their country needs to be open to the idea that it may have been founded in a corrupt ideology. For better or for worse (I think for the worse), radicalism seems to be increasing in popularity, on both the right (among some on the "alt-right" and among some post-liberal Catholics) and the left (among those influenced by critical theory and radical feminism, which animate the "social justice warriors"). Take a look at the trend in patriotic feeling for evidence of this: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gallup-democrats-drive-u-s-patriotism-plunge/

"Republican national pride has been consistent, Gallup finds. The 76 percent of Republicans who expressed extreme pride in the latest survey is 10 points off the high of 86 percent in 2003. “Even when Barack Obama was in office,” Brenan writes, “Republicans’ extreme pride never fell below 68 percent.”

Fewer Democrats than Republicans have said they had pride in America since the poll question was first asked in 2001. Lately, though, Democratic pride has fallen off a cliff. Just 22 percent of Democrats say they feel extreme pride for their country in the latest survey. That’s half the number recorded prior to the 2016 election. Needless to say, the nature and policies of the forty-fifth president have contributed to the Democratic plunge.

And yet I was also struck by the decline of Democratic “extreme” pride during Barack Obama’s second term. It went from 56 percent in 2013 to 44 percent in 2016. "

Some radicals are found later to have not been so radical and it was found the people fighting for the status quo were actually the problem.

Freeing slaves was a radical idea. Giving black folks and women the right to vote were some of the most radical ideas of our history.

Is Kap a radical by your above definition? The guys who took over the federal lands "armed" that the average person on TI was not outraged, were they radicals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: clem15
Except that's not what it means. That's funny tho. Many in this thread would agree and it has zero to do with what the media says or crooked politicians say. There is an actual definition. It's not just pride in ones country. But you do you. I'm good.

I just googled it and wow you are just completely wrong.
 
As someone says earlier you're not going to change your mind and I'm ok with that and I'm almost done. I will say this. How he feels about police is his business and based on his experiences. And he mentioned specifically dirty cops. Did anyone locate the company that makes those socks? You have a problem with them? I'm sure the market for those socks exist beyond him.

Those people that died did so to preserve your right to kneel. Do you get that? Again, it's what makes us unique. Historically we've challenged this country with protest of the government, law enforcement, the flag, etc. We've had tremendous change as a result.
There are veterans that have come out and said they encourage civil disobedience and some of them historically have refused to stand.

Loving the country doesn't require blindly accepting the things you don't agree with. The founding fathers put in place a system that will always include a populace that will forever be unafraid to stand in direct opposition to the flag and government. Our soldiers died so that right remains. You using the right of PEACEFUL protest against that very flag holds it accountable and honored why they died. But you don't want to hear that because you see it as somehow not loving or betraying your country. Loving your country or family or whatever means holding it accountable to what it said it was.
Don’t don’t tell me what you think I want to hear. You have no idea what I hear. I agree with you - your right to speak your opinion includes my right to be free from your opinion.

Now about Kap and the flag.... He sees the flag and the National anthem as representing something evil, dirty or anti-American. I call that a glass half empty mentality. He views America as place of unfairness and oppression. I see the flag as representing an ideal of freedom, democracy, and individual rights. I am honored to stand under the raising of the flag and the playing of the national anthem. I focus not on the nation’s flaws, but on her triumphs and greatness. Kap asks - like a lot of liberals - when was America ever great?

Do you hear me now?
 
Last edited:
So your okay with being intellectually dishonest? Good luck getting anywhere in life with that attitude

I'm ok with you thinking that's the definition. I'm ok with you having your own beliefs. Doesn't bother me that you disagree with my definition and I disagree with yours. Good luck in life not being ok with others not agreeing with you. Your last post was pathetic by the way
 
Don’t don’t tell me what you think I want to hear. You have no idea what I hear. I agree with you - your right to speak your opinion includes my right to be free from your opinion.

Now about Kap and the flag.... He sees the flag and the National anthem as representing something evil, dirty or anti-American. I call that a glass half empty mentality. He views America as place of unfairness and oppression. I see the flag as representing an ideal of freedom, democracy, and individual rights. I am honored to stand under the raising of the flag and the playing of the national anthem. I focus not on the nation’s flaws, but on her triumphs and greatness. Kap asks - like a lot of liberals - when was America ever great?

Do you hear me now?

If everyone had the mentality of not focusing on the country's flaws then we might be stuck in 1950. But therein lies the difference between your experience and mine. The 50s was probably good for you so you would be fine focusing on that. That wasn't working for me.

I'm ok with you believing what you believe tho. Kap said he loved this country too. His definition of love might be different from yours but I'm pretty sure you defined his incorrectly. But that's between you and him.
 
Here is my take.

Good on CK for policing Nike. He did what he is now in position to do. His protest and the reactions he received, in large part to the President, got him a contract with Nike. His platform is very visible. And as much as I disagree with his platform and his hypocritical actions and views, the public put him there. He is free to believe or protest whatever he wants as is everyone else.

Bad on Nike. Seriously, the betsy ross flag is a symbol of white supremicists? First I have heard of it. That shoe looks sweet and if it wasnt for this ordeal, i would have continued to forget the CK add from last year. I may have tried to buy a pair. Nike obviously has views aligned with CK. So I will exercise my right to not buy Nike. Good for the AZ governor. “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”. I support what he did. Nike thinks they are still on the right side because people still buy their stuff.

Everyone has rights to protest or whatever. Every company has rights to sell whatever. But the continued catering to the minority for things like this is annoying.

Dont compare this shoe thing or kneeling with emacipation and womens rights. It isnt like the government has rules in place for cops to treat minorities unfairly. That is the fundamental difference between this and other needed amendments.

That said. Lets make sure we tear down a few more statues and rename more roads.
 
Some radicals are found later to have not been so radical and it was found the people fighting for the status quo were actually the problem.

Freeing slaves was a radical idea. Giving black folks and women the right to vote were some of the most radical ideas of our history.

Is Kap a radical by your above definition? The guys who took over the federal lands "armed" that the average person on TI was not outraged, were they radicals?

I think you’re taking “radical” to mean something negative. Ending slavery was arguably not radical, according to Abraham Lincoln (and many people at the time of the founding). It was radical according to many of the people who formed the Confederacy. Giving the franchise to certain people was clearly not radical, since we were able to allow that through the normal political process.

I do think Kaepernick’s politics are radical, and that’s probably why he chose to protest the way he did. He’s said plenty of things that indicates he holds radical points of view. I think he’s wrong to think that way, but you don’t have to just because he’s a radical. But I do think we should acknowledge how radical some of the things he’s said are, and that the reactions he’s gotten might be because of his radicalism.

I also think you’ve entirely ignored the reformism of many activists in your reply to @yuthgi above. Those people didn’t just ignore problems in the country, but they also called upon the country’s ideals in order to solve those problems. Maybe we think those ideals aren’t adequate. But we should be clearer about where we’re coming from.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: yuthgi
Thankfully Colin Kaepernick is keeping an eye out for us and not letting us make choices that he would find offensive



Not that a Betsy Ross flag shoe is something I would probably buy, but at least now I don’t have that choice. Thank goodness - I might have chosen wrong.
It is a shame that a company like Nike lets a piece of sh*t like ck make a choice for real americans.
 
It just occurred to me.... CK is an expert in what offends people. He has been offending many for several years now. If he doesn’t want people to be offended, why has he been doing just that the last few years?
 
ADVERTISEMENT