You are correct that he is at least a fan of some of the way Malcolm X approached things, which you will see when you read his response.
You are correct that he is at least a fan of some of the way Malcolm X approached things, which you will see when you read his response.
Malcolm's take on 'white liberals' is amazing. Look it up.
Cool.
Comparing Kaepernick to people like Malcom X, Martin Luther King and others who acted in a very different environment is ridiculous. He is mostly just a disgruntled former QB who fit a particular system that got surpassed on his own roster by a mediocre journeyman QB when that system changed and decided to go nuts (anthem protest, vegan diet, radical activist girlfriend, Castro shirt, Pig socks, statements that soldiers "died in vain", etc.). He didn't risk everything, as my grandfathers did fighting in the South Pacific during WWII or my father did in Vietnam. He eroded his own market value and that of every other owner, player and support person in the NFL by deliberately offending a large percentage of the viewing audience in the manner he chose to support his pet cause. Is Kaepernick better than some of the backup QBs out there? Sure, but when he interviewed with Denver, Seattle and Baltimore (the teams most likely to run a system he could perform well under) he made it clear that he still wanted to be a starter. Unfortunately for him, he turned one down and the other two already had their franchise QBs and nobody else had an interest in signing him because either he didn't fit their system / personnel, they already had their guy at QB or they would lose too many fans by signing him (ie. Miami). He is not good enough / universal enough to overcome the negative impact he would have on viewership.
Malcolm X had a pretty low opinion on whites in general. If you were white you were an enemy weither or were a liberal or conservative-liberal whites were just more dangerous because they made you think they were on your side. He was really, by definition, a racist
comedyrelief wrote:
Comparing Kaepernick to people like Malcom X, Martin Luther King and others who acted in a very different environment is ridiculous. He is mostly just a disgruntled former QB who fit a particular system that got surpassed on his own roster by a mediocre journeyman QB when that system changed and decided to go nuts (anthem protest, vegan diet, radical activist girlfriend, Castro shirt, Pig socks, statements that soldiers "died in vain", etc.). He didn't risk everything, as my grandfathers did fighting in the South Pacific during WWII or my father did in Vietnam. He eroded his own market value and that of every other owner, player and support person in the NFL by deliberately offending a large percentage of the viewing audience in the manner he chose to support his pet cause. Is Kaepernick better than some of the backup QBs out there? Sure, but when he interviewed with Denver, Seattle and Baltimore (the teams most likely to run a system he could perform well under) he made it clear that he still wanted to be a starter. Unfortunately for him, he turned one down and the other two already had their franchise QBs and nobody else had an interest in signing him because either he didn't fit their system / personnel, they already had their guy at QB or they would lose too many fans by signing him (ie. Miami). He is not good enough / universal enough to overcome the negative impact he would have on viewership.
Spot on post. Yet Nike still chose to embrace and endorse the clown.
Well, the reality is... wrote:
celery wrote:
Remember, NIKE is a fashion company, and they are trying to cash in on political fervor to sell their fashion brand. For the Left, politics IS fashion. They do not think seriously about issues. The Left's position on every issue can be boiled down to an instinctive fashion statement. So it is no wonder that a fashion company is also using Leftist political aspirations to sell their fascism, oops, I mean fashion.
"For the Left, politics IS fashion"
Absolutely fantastic.
Since you like that idea, I should give credit where it is due. I heard this idea from Gavin Mcinnes.
muchado wrote:
celery wrote:
I'm offended by how lame this add is.
There was a lot of cringe worthy cheesiness in that commercial. As if buying Nike products has anything to do with become a world class athlete, much less doing anything remarkable with your life.
Remember, NIKE is a fashion company, and they are trying to cash in on political fervor to sell their fashion brand. For the Left, politics IS fashion. They do not think seriously about issues. The Left's position on every issue can be boiled down to an instinctive fashion statement. So it is no wonder that a fashion company is also using Leftist political aspirations to sell their fascism, oops, I mean fashion.
Thanks DiscoGary for your standard response of broad generalizations and purporting to know how others think.
Thanks muchado for the unfounded assumption that two different LRC posters are the same people. Thereby demonstrating for all, you inability to know the difference between opinion based one evidence and blind speculation.
celery wrote:
muchado wrote:
Thanks DiscoGary for your standard response of broad generalizations and purporting to know how others think.
Thanks muchado for the unfounded assumption that two different LRC posters are the same people. Thereby demonstrating for all, you inability to know the difference between opinion based one evidence and blind speculation.
No problem. I guess I could tell you I used the metaphor to compare two people that share the same negative traits, and wasn't outright claiming you are the same, but I think you know that.
muchado wrote:
No problem. I guess I could tell you I used the metaphor to compare two people that share the same negative traits, and wasn't outright claiming you are the same, but I think you know that.
Bahahahaaa!
Change your name to James Clapper: "It wasn't spying, it was surveillance" "I wasn't lying, I was just thinking about something else"
muchado wrote:
celery wrote:
Thanks muchado for the unfounded assumption that two different LRC posters are the same people. Thereby demonstrating for all, you inability to know the difference between opinion based one evidence and blind speculation.
No problem. I guess I could tell you I used the metaphor to compare two people that share the same negative traits, and wasn't outright claiming you are the same, but I think you know that.
Oh, so you knew I wasn't disco gary, but you just wanted to disparage my views by associating me with someone else who you disdain. That's a really advanced debate technique muchado, or should I say...hitler.
Wah wah wah.
See how lame your argument is?
Lastly, it's hilarious that you think I would know that you know I'm not discogary, even though you called me discogary. Are you familiar with the mind reading fallacy?
celery wrote:
muchado wrote:
No problem. I guess I could tell you I used the metaphor to compare two people that share the same negative traits, and wasn't outright claiming you are the same, but I think you know that.
Oh, so you knew I wasn't disco gary, but you just wanted to disparage my views by associating me with someone else who you disdain. That's a really advanced debate technique muchado, or should I say...hitler.
Wah wah wah.
See how lame your argument is?
Lastly, it's hilarious that you think I would know that you know I'm not discogary, even though you called me discogary. Are you familiar with the mind reading fallacy?
Why should i expect to be able to have an intellectually honest debate with someone who says, "They [the left] do not think seriously about issues"? You may think this is fodder for that statement instead of seeing it as the non-starter it is.
muchado wrote:
celery wrote:
Oh, so you knew I wasn't disco gary, but you just wanted to disparage my views by associating me with someone else who you disdain. That's a really advanced debate technique muchado, or should I say...hitler.
Wah wah wah.
See how lame your argument is?
Lastly, it's hilarious that you think I would know that you know I'm not discogary, even though you called me discogary. Are you familiar with the mind reading fallacy?
Why should i expect to be able to have an intellectually honest debate with someone who says, "They [the left] do not think seriously about issues"? You may think this is fodder for that statement instead of seeing it as the non-starter it is.
Pick any issue, and tell me the Leftist stance on it, and explain how that stance is backed up by evidence.
As I stated, I don't believe it is possible to have an intellectually honest debate with someone who thinks an entire political party is devoid of any ability to think through any issues. So I won't waste my time.
muchado wrote:
As I stated, I don't believe it is possible to have an intellectually honest debate with someone who thinks an entire political party is devoid of any ability to think through any issues. So I won't waste my time.
Your unwillingness to debate me kind of proves my point. But since you have not stated where you stand on any issue, I will clarify what I mean by "the Left."
First of all, I draw a distinction between "the Left" and Democrats (although that distinction is growing smaller each year). The Democratic party of JFK had some good arguments based on classical liberalism. They still made some huge policy mistakes that we are paying for today, but they were close to getting things right.
When I say the Left, I mean the neo-marxist, feminist, intersectional BS that has taken over academia and is animating the Democratic party more and more. I didn't say the Left does not think through an issue. They think a lot. But they don't think seriously. They don't compare their policy proposals to the alternatives. They don't think of the unintended consequences of their proposals. They don't ask for evidence to prove that their proposals will work better than the alternatives. They think a lot, but not seriously. They don't think like adults. They daydream.
definitely boycotting - different reason wrote:
I boycott Nike because of their support for known and suspected cheaters, both athletes and coaches.
It would make more sense if you boycotted because of the football player. Can we assume you wear no athletic gear?
Democrats lose again!!!!!!!
Hahahahaha!!!!!!
celery wrote:
Well, the reality is... wrote:
"For the Left, politics IS fashion"
Absolutely fantastic.
Since you like that idea, I should give credit where it is due. I heard this idea from Gavin Mcinnes.
Facile, and incorrect.
It's amazes me how easily hard you dolts get with your own declared "cleverness."
So much of what the right throws is evidence of their own knowledge of how they act. Mental disorder. Fashion. Yadda.
celery wrote:
Your unwillingness to debate me kind of proves my point. But since you have not stated where you stand on any issue, I will clarify what I mean by "the Left."
Oh, this should be good.....
celery wrote:
First of all, I draw a distinction between "the Left" and Democrats (although that distinction is growing smaller each year). The Democratic party of JFK had some good arguments based on classical liberalism. They still made some huge policy mistakes that we are paying for today, but they were close to getting things right.
Um, what?
celery wrote:
When I say the Left, I mean the neo-marxist, feminist, intersectional BS that has taken over academia and is animating the Democratic party more and more. I didn't say the Left does not think through an issue. They think a lot. But they don't think seriously. They don't compare their policy proposals to the alternatives. They don't think of the unintended consequences of their proposals. They don't ask for evidence to prove that their proposals will work better than the alternatives. They think a lot, but not seriously. They don't think like adults. They daydream.
Who are they? Who is this Left, celery? You just made up a great straw man with your "clarification" of what you think the left is. Give us examples.
That's why the other poster won't engage you. You can't be argues with because you use straw men to try to make your poor arguments.
hrmmmmm wrote:
celery wrote:
When I say the Left, I mean the neo-marxist, feminist, intersectional BS that has taken over academia and is animating the Democratic party more and more. I didn't say the Left does not think through an issue. They think a lot. But they don't think seriously. They don't compare their policy proposals to the alternatives. They don't think of the unintended consequences of their proposals. They don't ask for evidence to prove that their proposals will work better than the alternatives. They think a lot, but not seriously. They don't think like adults. They daydream.
Who are they? Who is this Left, celery? You just made up a great straw man with your "clarification" of what you think the left is. Give us examples.
That's why the other poster won't engage you. You can't be argues with because you use straw men to try to make your poor arguments.
Well geez dumbazz, read the second sentence.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these