UJRefugees.net

I enjoy football and don't give a fuck about who is protesting what so if im not busy I watch a game or two.

necronomous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:16 pm

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:37 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:00 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:05 pm If I had to guess, I'd say Nike is skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it is right now. Nike is focused on keeping it's brand relavant for decades to come. I think they would rather lose some baby boomer buisness as opposed to turning off the younger generations who are much more likely to agree with some of their more recent actions. Half of Nike's revenue comes from outside North America, and this is the segment that is growing. Outside of the U.S. this is a non-issue.

That's a good point. I'm not really referring to Nike, in particular. Just any business that wants to go down that path. Just seems like the most foolish business decision you could make. For example, everybody watches Deniro yell "Fuck Trump" and the whole crowd stands and applauds. He and them are certainly entitled to their free speech, but if your business model is getting butts in the seats at theaters, just stupid to alienate 35% of the population that takes that shit serious and will boycott.Forever

FTFY

Lol, ok

Yeah, the funny thing about that is it's the same 35% that follow Trump blindly and pick up his shit like a dog. The same 35% who probably don't own a damn pair of Nikes, and who vowed to boycott Saks Fifth Avenue after they dropped Ivanka's cheap clothing and shoe line, yet can barely shop at their own store on their time off from Walmart.

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:31 am

Incomplete Comparison? Appeal to emotion? Stawman? So many to choose from.

Big Chiefin' wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:36 am I haven't watched a second of the NFL since the start of the 2017 season and I will not have a dime of my hard earned money spent on Nike. You disrespect our flag and law enforcement, then you see none of my money or viewership (which leads to advertising revenue). It's that simple for me. So I guess I am part of the 35% (or whatever number you want to put on it).

On the plus side, I'm the only one at work who wasn't dragging ass the day after the Super Bowl because I was in bed by 9PM the last 2 years.

I respect your right to your opinion. I'm curious though, you say it is simple for you. Is it still simple when you realize law enforcment has exceeded or abused their powers?

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:18 am

Big Chiefin' wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:36 am I haven't watched a second of the NFL since the start of the 2017 season and I will not have a dime of my hard earned money spent on Nike. You disrespect our flag and law enforcement, then you see none of my money or viewership (which leads to advertising revenue). It's that simple for me. So I guess I am part of the 35% (or whatever number you want to put on it).

On the plus side, I'm the only one at work who wasn't dragging ass the day after the Super Bowl because I was in bed by 9PM the last 2 years.

I respect your right to your opinion. I'm curious though, you say it is simple for you. Is it still simple when you realize law enforcment has exceeded or abused their powers?

It does but it isn't nearly as systemic as the media would have you believe. Most cops just want to do good, that being said policies like policing for profit and red light cameras are bullshit. The DNR, EPA, and OSHA, I don't trust them at all.

It should be obvious who's given up trying to unnerstan Trump's connection with his supporters. That failure will result in his reelection.

Nike is a multinational corporation. It will choose a path that grows revenues, regardless of how it impacts US customers. I think those who drop hundreds of dollars on shoes made for $7.35 in China & Vietnam are Morans. But hey, anything to make a buck.

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:09 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:16 pm

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:37 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:00 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:05 pm If I had to guess, I'd say Nike is skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it is right now. Nike is focused on keeping it's brand relavant for decades to come. I think they would rather lose some baby boomer buisness as opposed to turning off the younger generations who are much more likely to agree with some of their more recent actions. Half of Nike's revenue comes from outside North America, and this is the segment that is growing. Outside of the U.S. this is a non-issue.

That's a good point. I'm not really referring to Nike, in particular. Just any business that wants to go down that path. Just seems like the most foolish business decision you could make. For example, everybody watches Deniro yell "Fuck Trump" and the whole crowd stands and applauds. He and them are certainly entitled to their free speech, but if your business model is getting butts in the seats at theaters, just stupid to alienate 35% of the population that takes that shit serious and will boycott.Forever

FTFY

Lol, ok

Yeah, the funny thing about that is it's the same 35% that follow Trump blindly and pick up his shit like a dog. The same 35% who probably don't own a damn pair of Nikes, and who vowed to boycott Saks Fifth Avenue after they dropped Ivanka's cheap clothing and shoe line, yet can barely shop at their own store on their time off from Walmart.

Lol ok

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:18 am

Big Chiefin' wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:36 am I haven't watched a second of the NFL since the start of the 2017 season and I will not have a dime of my hard earned money spent on Nike. You disrespect our flag and law enforcement, then you see none of my money or viewership (which leads to advertising revenue). It's that simple for me. So I guess I am part of the 35% (or whatever number you want to put on it).

On the plus side, I'm the only one at work who wasn't dragging ass the day after the Super Bowl because I was in bed by 9PM the last 2 years.

I respect your right to your opinion. I'm curious though, you say it is simple for you. Is it still simple when you realize law enforcment has exceeded or abused their powers?

As a retired federal agent, you will never convince me of the narrative (false, IMO) that law enforcement has exceeded or abused their powers. I have worked with hundreds, if not thousands of cops in my 25 year career and I have the utmost respect for the work that they do. They have a tough job and have to make split-second decisions. (I was fortunate to never end up in such a situation in my career) As with any profession there are bound to be a few bad eggs, but I have never encountered one. The vast majority of the cases that garnered national media attention (Michael Brown and Eric Garner for example) have one common denominator; failure to obey instructions from law enforcement. The media combined with a Commander-in-Chief who again and again jumped to conclusions before having all of the facts, have fed into this false narrative. And that is why it is simple for me.

Big Chiefin' wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:26 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:18 am

Big Chiefin' wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:36 am I haven't watched a second of the NFL since the start of the 2017 season and I will not have a dime of my hard earned money spent on Nike. You disrespect our flag and law enforcement, then you see none of my money or viewership (which leads to advertising revenue). It's that simple for me. So I guess I am part of the 35% (or whatever number you want to put on it).

On the plus side, I'm the only one at work who wasn't dragging ass the day after the Super Bowl because I was in bed by 9PM the last 2 years.

I respect your right to your opinion. I'm curious though, you say it is simple for you. Is it still simple when you realize law enforcment has exceeded or abused their powers?

tha
As a retired federal agent, you will never convince me of the narrative (false, IMO) that law enforcement has exceeded or abused their powers. I have worked with hundreds, if not thousands of cops in my 25 year career and I have the utmost respect for the work that they do. They have a tough job and have to make split-second decisions. (I was fortunate to never end up in such a situation in my career) As with any profession there are bound to be a few bad eggs, but I have never encountered one. The vast majority of the cases that garnered national media attention (Michael Brown and Eric Garner for example) have one common denominator; failure to obey instructions from law enforcement. The media combined with a Commander-in-Chief who again and again jumped to conclusions before having all of the facts, have fed into this false narrative. And that is why it is simple for me.

When I say exceeding or abuse of power, I meant mostly on the individual level rather than systemic, although civil forfeiture and racial profiling in traffic stops are likely the exception. In my city, complaints against police have dropped nearly 60% since police has started wearing body cameras. I'm sure some of that is due to people knowing they can't file b.s . reports now, but I would wager a years salary that LEOs are more carefull now as well. The other part is the bad apples seem to rarely lose their job unless they do something so heinous that they themselves are arrested. Some will just quit and find a job with another agency, and their record won't follow them.

So, I just want to make a couple of points. This thread is about Nike- but it could be about Hollywood and many others. Nike- pointed out it's multi-national wanting to push into China and other Asian markets. Fine. Couple of business problems with that. You ignore the largest economy on Earth here at home at your peril. Business 101. Your company makes "X". It's in the interest of every employee of your company from owner to the lowest employee to sell as many "XXXXXXXXXXXXX"s" as you can. But your owner, CEO, and other top officers of the company decide they want to go the SJW route. You just alienated 30-40-50% (whatever) of your home market not just today but for life. Idiocy business decisions beyond description. Now, let's talk about those Asian markets they want so bad to penetrate. If these companies are surprised at the pushback here at home to their PC, gay, transgender, LBTQTDBTS whatever BS, they haven't seen anything yet. Those Asian countries, especially China (3,000 years old) are all deeply conservative. Never going to fly there. It's easily the dumbest business models I've ever seen.

China doesn't care about Betsy Ross flagg shoes not being sold in America.

Under Armour was a brand that was growing at a very fast pace for years. The CEO Kevin Plank made public statements supporting Trump, and was part of his advisory council. Under Armour stock went on a nose dive after that.

Like it or not, image matters, and the image of being "cool'' doesn't usually fally on the conservative side.

I noticed all these idiot executives at Nike, Hollywood studios, Starbucks, etc all seem to be the same age as RD. Why am I not surprised. I can almost picture all of them taking the same Math/ Businesses courses together.

I personally couldn't give a fuck less if someone in a company says they support puppy versus baby, cage death matches. If they make a good quality product at a good price, I'd probably buy it. If everyone only ever bought a product based on whether they agree with everything that the maker or seller says or does, nobody would buy anything. I don't give a fuck aboot Phil Knight's opinion on forcing Mexican prostitutes to perform donkey shows. I would still buy Nike shoes if they were a quality product, but like I said way earlier in this thread the last few pairs I've bought have been absolute shit. so fuck Nike based strictly on that. Everyone is so concerned aboot what everyone thinks or says aboot everything nowadays. You're entitled to your opinion as long as I agree with it, right? Fuck off. Opinions are like assholes, and so are you people.

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:18 pm Under Armour was a brand that was growing at a very fast pace for years. The CEO Kevin Plank made public statements supporting Trump, and was part of his advisory council. Under Armour stock went on a nose dive after that.

Like it or not, image matters, and the image of being "cool'' doesn't usually fally on the conservative side.

Well, let's flip the tables and see how to run a business from the other side and correct. Conservative minded Chick-Fil-A. No doubt the owners, CEO, top officers contribute to Conservative causes. If you'll notice they do so quietly so is doesn't interfere with the business side. That is a solid business model. Nike couldn't contribute $100 for the Gay Scouts without a press release. Just dumb beyond belief.

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:15 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:18 pm Under Armour was a brand that was growing at a very fast pace for years. The CEO Kevin Plank made public statements supporting Trump, and was part of his advisory council. Under Armour stock went on a nose dive after that.

Like it or not, image matters, and the image of being "cool'' doesn't usually fally on the conservative side.

Well, let's flip the tables and see how to run a business from the other side and correct. Conservative minded Chick-Fil-A. No doubt the owners, CEO, top officers contribute to Conservative causes. If you'll notice they do so quietly so is doesn't interfere with the business side. That is a solid business model. Nike couldn't contribute $100 for the Gay Scouts without a press release. Just dumb beyond belief.

Yeah, Nike isn't successful at all.

Chick-Fil-A is privately owned. They don't have to worry about shareholders. BTW they took their share of heat about being anti gay.

kwebber wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:01 pm I personally couldn't give a fuck less if someone in a company says they support puppy versus baby, cage death matches. If they make a good quality product at a good price, I'd probably buy it. If everyone only ever bought a product based on whether they agree with everything that the maker or seller says or does, nobody would buy anything. I don't give a fuck aboot Phil Knight's opinion on forcing Mexican prostitutes to perform donkey shows. I would still buy Nike shoes if they were a quality product, but like I said way earlier in this thread the last few pairs I've bought have been absolute shit. so fuck Nike based strictly on that. Everyone is so concerned aboot what everyone thinks or says aboot everything nowadays. You're entitled to your opinion as long as I agree with it, right? Fuck off. Opinions are like assholes, and so are you people.

Very well put. My point is only that your company is trying sell "X". Why muck it up with PC BS. Make your product quality, then it sells, you make $$. Everything else is just noise. Useless endless noise.

Chick-fil-A's chief operating officer Dan T. Cathy made several public statements about same-sex marriage, saying that those who "have the audacity to define what marriage is about" were "inviting God's judgment on our nation"

https://web.archive.org/web/20120725040 ... hick-fil-A

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:17 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:15 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:18 pm Under Armour was a brand that was growing at a very fast pace for years. The CEO Kevin Plank made public statements supporting Trump, and was part of his advisory council. Under Armour stock went on a nose dive after that.

Like it or not, image matters, and the image of being "cool'' doesn't usually fally on the conservative side.

Well, let's flip the tables and see how to run a business from the other side and correct. Conservative minded Chick-Fil-A. No doubt the owners, CEO, top officers contribute to Conservative causes. If you'll notice they do so quietly so is doesn't interfere with the business side. That is a solid business model. Nike couldn't contribute $100 for the Gay Scouts without a press release. Just dumb beyond belief.

Yeah, Nike isn't successful at all.

Chick-Fil-A is privately owned. They don't have to worry about shareholders. BTW they took their share of heat about being anti gay.

Absolutely. The difference? They make sure that Corporate culture doesn't seep down into the business end. Contrast that with Nike, Starbucks where every $100 contribution to some progressive cause is met with a worldwide press release. Just business idiocy on how not to run a business.

I wonder how many 30 billion dollar multinational corporations WTC has run?

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:47 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:17 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:15 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:18 pm Under Armour was a brand that was growing at a very fast pace for years. The CEO Kevin Plank made public statements supporting Trump, and was part of his advisory council. Under Armour stock went on a nose dive after that.

Like it or not, image matters, and the image of being "cool'' doesn't usually fally on the conservative side.

Well, let's flip the tables and see how to run a business from the other side and correct. Conservative minded Chick-Fil-A. No doubt the owners, CEO, top officers contribute to Conservative causes. If you'll notice they do so quietly so is doesn't interfere with the business side. That is a solid business model. Nike couldn't contribute $100 for the Gay Scouts without a press release. Just dumb beyond belief.

Yeah, Nike isn't successful at all.

Chick-Fil-A is privately owned. They don't have to worry about shareholders. BTW they took their share of heat about being anti gay.

Absolutely. The difference? They make sure that Corporate culture doesn't seep down into the business end. Contrast that with Nike, Starbucks where every $100 contribution to some progressive cause is met with a worldwide press release. Just business idiocy on how not to run a business.

I'm not sure you understand how publicly owned businesses operate.

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:51 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:47 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:17 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:15 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:18 pm Under Armour was a brand that was growing at a very fast pace for years. The CEO Kevin Plank made public statements supporting Trump, and was part of his advisory council. Under Armour stock went on a nose dive after that.

Like it or not, image matters, and the image of being "cool'' doesn't usually fally on the conservative side.

Well, let's flip the tables and see how to run a business from the other side and correct. Conservative minded Chick-Fil-A. No doubt the owners, CEO, top officers contribute to Conservative causes. If you'll notice they do so quietly so is doesn't interfere with the business side. That is a solid business model. Nike couldn't contribute $100 for the Gay Scouts without a press release. Just dumb beyond belief.

Yeah, Nike isn't successful at all.

Chick-Fil-A is privately owned. They don't have to worry about shareholders. BTW they took their share of heat about being anti gay.

Absolutely. The difference? They make sure that Corporate culture doesn't seep down into the business end. Contrast that with Nike, Starbucks where every $100 contribution to some progressive cause is met with a worldwide press release. Just business idiocy on how not to run a business.

I'm not sure you understand how publicly owned businesses operate.

I'm not sure you understand how businesses operate period. Rule #1- don't piss off the customers. Rule #2- do #1 and you won't have to worry about Rules much longer.

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:04 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:51 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:47 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:17 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:15 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:18 pm Under Armour was a brand that was growing at a very fast pace for years. The CEO Kevin Plank made public statements supporting Trump, and was part of his advisory council. Under Armour stock went on a nose dive after that.

Like it or not, image matters, and the image of being "cool'' doesn't usually fally on the conservative side.

Well, let's flip the tables and see how to run a business from the other side and correct. Conservative minded Chick-Fil-A. No doubt the owners, CEO, top officers contribute to Conservative causes. If you'll notice they do so quietly so is doesn't interfere with the business side. That is a solid business model. Nike couldn't contribute $100 for the Gay Scouts without a press release. Just dumb beyond belief.

Yeah, Nike isn't successful at all.

Chick-Fil-A is privately owned. They don't have to worry about shareholders. BTW they took their share of heat about being anti gay.

Absolutely. The difference? They make sure that Corporate culture doesn't seep down into the business end. Contrast that with Nike, Starbucks where every $100 contribution to some progressive cause is met with a worldwide press release. Just business idiocy on how not to run a business.

I'm not sure you understand how publicly owned businesses operate.

I'm not sure you understand how businesses operate period. Rule #1- don't piss off the customers. Rule #2- do #1 and you won't have to worry about Rules much longer.

Publicly owned companies answer to shareholders, customers be damned.

Quit postulating.

I've never in my entire life ever bought a single Nike product. I've never in my life ever entered a Starbucks. I have eaten at Chick-Fil-A a few times. Almost every time though, I go someplace else because the wait lines are out the door. Which business model would you want to bank on?