NFL Fires a Player qua Domestic Violence; morally right??

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

To some extent I've strayed from the topic at hand, but to return to it I will say that I agree that the NFL is different from other companies, but only by the degree of its concern for a public image

I dont know that the public is onboard the NFL policing its players. Do you have any proof of this? The NFL is protecting its backside, its money, it has zero tolerance for standing up to spineless corporate sponsors and is willing to cashier talent to protect that income. As Paula Dean and so many others have learned corporate sponsors are going bye-bye the second they sniff controversy. Perhaps to NFL should change its business model to one where it no longer needs to join corporate American in being spineless assholes.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Clearly, employees in America don't exist in a Utopia of employment, but it's nothing like the salt mines and sweat shops you and others would have us believe.

Capital has had labor on the run for a couple of decades now. The NFL's abuse of its talent is just one tiny proof. The current NFL commish is an overbearing lord of the workforce with little appreciation for the work they do to make the NFL a success because he can be. He had a no news conference for an hour, he spent less than 30 seconds saying anything nice about the players.

1 Reply

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2191370-athletes-and-media-react-to-ray-rice-domestic-violence-video?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national3

Anyone want to take my $10,000 Romney bet that Paul George didn't personally write his "official" apology?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/sports/september_2014/most_say_ray_rice_should_be_banned_from_football

There you go, but this is irrelevant. My comment was that the NFL is more concerned about its public image than most other companies. You don't think this is true?

And from where do you think they get the income they want to protect (something you obviously find so unseemly)?

Before you answer "The corporate advertisors of course?", why do you think corporations are paying for ad time on NFL games? Because they need a platform for their evil subliminal brain-washing about capitalism?

What business model to you suggest the NFL adopt? One that disregards what the paying public thinks? One that rejects revenue sources that allow it to pay the huge salaries players demand?

You realize don't you that ad spots on NFL games cost companies huge amounts of money, and that there are plenty of other outlets for this expense. Somehow you think it's good corporate management to put hundreds of millions of dollars at risk because some guy who calls himself hawkeye thinks their ball are too small.

You continue to try and force you square argument into the round facts.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Your constant call for workers of the world to unite is sounding tinny, and raising Ray Rice, Paula Dean and The Duck Dynasty guy as classic proof of the evils of Capital isn't helping.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

My list of arguments that our current economic system does not work goes on for miles. Frankly I am very suspicious of the honesty of anyone who claims that it does.

1 Reply

Somewhat relevant video as I think the incident with the man protesting and the pride goer relates to how society addresses physical violence between men and women:

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Frankly, I don't really care much about what you think of my honesty. Your experience with Corporate America is obviously limited to anti-capitalist screeds.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Frankly, I don't really care much about what you think of my honesty. Your experience with Corporate America is obviously limited to anti-capitalist screeds.

Stick to the arguments rather than your fantasy of who the other speakers are. My views are not radical

Quote:

Only 52% of the public in developed markets have a "favorable" view of corporations, compared with 72% in emerging markets such as China, Brazil, India, Mexico and Turkey. Nearly three-fifths of the public in emerging markets favor corporations that are "strong and influential" because they are "engines of innovation and economic growth." Just over one-third of the public in developed markets agree. In developed markets, 45% say corporations have "too much influence over government," compared with 30% in emerging economies.

China and the U.S. have especially glaring—and perhaps surprising—differences. The U.S. public is divided on whether corporations are a source of "hope" (36%) or "fear" (37%). In China they have far fewer concerns, with 84% saying corporations are a source of "hope." More than half (51%) of the U.S. public says "strong and influential" corporations are "bad," even if they are promoting innovation and growth. In China 74% embrace strong corporations as "good."

There is a notable Main Street vs. C-Suite divide, especially in developed economies. Fifty-eight percent of developed-economy business leaders, compared with only 44% of the public, say corporations are a source of "hope" not "fear." And the general population has doubts about "strong and influential" corporations, with only 35% in developed markets saying they are a "good thing." In contrast, 51% of executives favor them.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/donald-baer-the-wests-bruised-confidence-in-capitalism-1411358403

With these kinds of numbers criticism of the current economic system can not be dismissed without response.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Frankly, I don't really care much about what you think of my honesty.

You're completely dishonest. That's a proven fact. You said you were leaving A2K. You came back as Dr. Gotz, then you came back again to reveal all. That was the only honest thing you did, and I suspect it's because you were struggling with keeping up the pretence.

When you said you were leaving you were lying.

When you came back as Dr. Gotz you were being dishonest.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Frankly, I don't really care much about what you think of my honesty.

izzythepush wrote:

You're completely dishonest. That's a proven fact. You said you were leaving A2K. You came back as Dr. Gotz, then you came back again to reveal all. That was the only honest thing you did, and I suspect it's because you were struggling with keeping up the pretence.

When you said you were leaving you were lying.

When you came back as Dr. Gotz you were being dishonest.

Well, technically, if he says that he 's leaving,
and then he leaves: that 's honest, right ??????????

Did he offer assurances
that he 'd not come back ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm not going to dredge up old posts, but I got the distinct impression that he was leaving for good.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Glad to have him back. Why complain about a good thing?

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Glad to have him back. Why complain about a good thing?

Yes. The forum benefits from more participation,
in those cases when the participants are of basically sound mind.

0 Replies

@engineer,

You've obviously not been subjected to his nasty side. I'd be happy to never hear from him again.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I actually respect Hawkeye and I don't care what he thinks about by honesty, so you...

It is somewhat flattering though that you seem to have kept a recorded history of my activities in this forum. Your strangely intense hatred warps your interpretation of the facts, but at least you feel they have some importance.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Typical izzy. For a while, and to this day, he's been spewing lies about what I've written about his wife and son. Calling him out on it I repeatedly offered to vacate A2K for all time if he could produce the posts which proved his allegations. His answer has always been the ludicrous "I don't want to do your work for you."

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Now who is being dishonest?

There is a very simple way for your to get your heart's desire (and you don't have to do any "work"): use the "ignore" feature.

But what really makes you happy is to follow me around to threads where you have nothing more to contribute than lie filled personal attacks.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I don't follow you around. I comment on some of what you say. You know exactly what you said, and you like to bring it up, because you don't want me to forget it.

I know what you are, and that's what really pisses you off.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Typical izzy. For a while, and to this day, he's been spewing lies about what I've written about his wife and son. Calling him out on it I repeatedly offered to vacate A2K for all time if he could produce the posts which proved his allegations. His answer has always been the ludicrous "I don't want to do your work for you."

Y not offer him a sincere apology CONDITIONED
on guilt, to wit:

" Dear Izzy,
IF any remarks that I have posted
were insulting to any member of your family,
then I withdraw any such remarks and I apologize."

IF it is true that u did not intend
to insult members of his family
then grant him your sincere assurance thereof.

That seems like a harmonious way of restoring civil relations.

David

1 Reply

NFL Fires a Player qua Domestic Violence; morally right??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know