Texas Farm Bureau and Mississippi Dept. of Public Safety Ban Employees From Wearing Nikes

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So if the Obama administration had prohibited all federal employees from wearing clothing from Ivanka Trump's brand you would have been fine with it?

a reply to: seeker1963

Yep! What if Converse (do they still exist) supported someone who was considered a Nazi?

Is Kaepernick equivalent to a Nazi?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: seeker1963

Yep! What if Converse (do they still exist) supported someone who was considered a Nazi?

Is Kaepernick equivalent to a Nazi?

Why did you cherry pick one part of my post?


If I owned a business I would snip can anyone who brought political issues to my business. PERIOD! You can thank the PC left for this nonsense. There is hardly and aspect of any of our lives that hasn't been politicized in one way or another by those so cowardly to not have a platform of positivity to run on, but figuring out ways to demonize anyone who doesn't fall within their "little boxes".

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If the apparel had huge corporate logos, and those logos were overtly associated with divisive politics, especially if wearing the stuff might have an Electioneering impact, then they should be anyways. Government officers out campaigning with their clothes. Explain to me in what reality that works, and I'll show you a picture of a Brownshirt wearing wearing a big bold Swastika on their sleeve.

The Swastika was a 'corporate' logo too. As is the Jackass & Elephant. Its all the same thing. Especially once a 'ttypical corporation' makes its company image about said noise.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: seeker1963

Yep! What if Converse (do they still exist) supported someone who was considered a Nazi?

Is Kaepernick equivalent to a Nazi?

Yes.

Because is doesn't matter ideology, free expression is free expression.

Nazi's have as much freedom to express themselves as Kaepernick.

Now companies start firing people for what they wear once they leave the property, like people are seemingly pretending this equates to, and I'll lead the rally against them.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xcalibur254

If the apparel had huge corporate logos, and those logos were overtly associated with divisive politics, especially if wearing the stuff might have an Electioneering impact, then they should be anyways. Government officers out campaigning with their clothes. Explain to me in what reality that works, and I'll show you a picture of a Brownshirt wearing wearing a big bold Swastika on their sleeve.

The Swastika was a 'corporate' logo too. As is the Jackass & Elephant. Its all the same thing. Especially once a 'ttypical corporation' makes its company image about said noise.

You don't like what this company did, but most large companies/corporations are political.

Lets not act like they don't all donate to political campaigns and send lobbyists to Washington to make sure laws in their favor are passed.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: seeker1963

Yep! What if Converse (do they still exist) supported someone who was considered a Nazi?

Is Kaepernick equivalent to a Nazi?

Yes.

Because is doesn't matter ideology, free expression is free expression.

Nazi's have as much freedom to express themselves as Kaepernick.

I agree with you, but comparing him to nazis is hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest in the debate.

I hate when everything comes down to calling things nazi these days. It deludes the term and the history behind it while mudding the waters of debate.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Everyone is a racist Nazi now-a-days.


The terms have been so abused that if we found a 110 year old Nazi plotting doom, he'd be judged on if he joined the #MeToo movement.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Dont tell me what I like or dont.

I think the whole NFL thing is stupid. I mean the WHOLE thing (NFL that is)!

I think the bosses are morons for allowing their employees to politicize the kickoff of every game. Look at what its done for business.

I think the whole premise of the players protests are misguided and pretty absurd, especially considering the drama they've wrapped around this "cause" that has no clearly stated achievable objective (its not even discernible unless its purely to cause division that is).

But long before "SJW's" existed I thought everybody was stupid for dumbing themselves down for following football, using it to facilitate blissful ignorance and allowing things get so damn bad.

So I've actually been laughing about the whole affair since the moment I saw it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Everyone is a racist Nazi now-a-days.


The terms have been so abused that if we found a 110 year old Nazi plotting doom, he'd be judged on if he joined the #MeToo movement.

Luckily I don't feel beholden to what the masses see as acceptable.

None of that stops me from throwing out when either side is hyperbolic and comparing people to a group who commited genocide.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree, both sides suck. But the liberal side seems to be entrenched in an anti-America campaign, and they not only think they are right, they think every single conservative is a racist Nazi. The difference is that both sides have fringe groups, but Conservatives try to distance themselves and Liberals embrace the fringe and refuse to say anything bad about them.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: seeker1963

Yep! What if Converse (do they still exist) supported someone who was considered a Nazi?

Is Kaepernick equivalent to a Nazi?

I find him equally repugnant to a KKK supporter.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

SJW is virtually indistinguishable from Nazism by a social psychology + social movements standpoint. Its the same tiger, nearly identical stripes on the tiger, but different colored stripes. As has been detailed at length.

Take away the pronouns, switch "nationalism" for "globalism", and you cant even tell who youre listening to!



But thats besides the point: employers can ban workers from wearing political schwag to work.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We’ve got black doctors, black lawyers, black celebrities, black 4 star generals, black attorney generals, black senators, black Supreme Court justices, even had a black POTUS for 2 terms. It looks like black people can be anything they want to be. If America is oppressing black people we are doing a piss-poor job

I also support krapperdick’s right to be wrong. And I support my right to protest his protest

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

I don't believe you, all black people are oppressed by America and we need to not respect the country.

a reply to: notsure1

Their business their rules. AMIRIGHT?

In the case of a private business..sure.

a reply to: Lumenari

when has a left leaning business told their employees that they couldn't wear this or that common brand of footwear to work like this???
just out of the blue, suddenly the shoes you just bought to replace the pair that soaked your sock every time you walked on mildly wet pavement, you can't wear to work.. not for any realistic, safety issue or such, no,.... but for some nutty political reason!! well, sorry, I threw out my old shoes after I bought the new ones and don't feel like going garbage picking. you have a choice boss, either accept me and my only pair of shoes, or I can come in barefoot, or, well, I will take my vacation now and will be back to work after the next payday, when I have the money to buy another pair of shoes that are more to your liking!!

a reply to: dawnstar

I don’t know about that but I can tell you about a left leaning business refusing to serve Trump employees and their family

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist
it's not even comparable!!
Sarah Sanders is the spokeswomen for this administration, it's her face that we all see on tv trying to justify the policies..
and I do believe that that happened the same time as people were being outraged at the sound of children crying for their mommies and daddies...

I have problems with my feet, there's alot of shoes I cannot wear. so, when I go shopping for a pair of shoes, what do you think is the main thing on my mind? do you really think it's anything political? no, I am looking for a pair of shoes that are comfortable and I'll be able to wear more than five minutes without my feet cramping up, a pair that feels like I am walking on clouds, a pair that I will want to wear from the time I get up to the time I go to bed, because I will not be able to walk without them!!! I have worn the same brand, same style for probably over a decade! I don't own multiple pairs of shoes and quite frankly, I hate shopping for them. And, I am not rich.. new shoes have been on my list of I really need for awhile now... still waiting.
refusing to serve a person at a restaurant doesn't really cause the person to spend money now does it? heck, in this case, it saved them money because they were already served some food and ate it and weren't charged for it. to tell your employee that the shoes he is wearing to work isn't acceptable simply because of the brand very well could force him to spend money he really shouldn't have to. I could see it if you are just starting a job and their policy is for you to have steel toed boots, or even if they want everyone to have the same colored slacks and such. but because your don't like the advertising gimmick that the company that made the shoes has going on??? that's just plain insanity...