That's fine. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't. That's up to each individual person, but as CEO he should have known everything going on with their unethical practices.
What's with the "got it" stuff? I've answered your boring, bating, idiotic questions with honest answers because that is the nature of good faith discussions even when you despise the other person. Try it without the pseudo-wit. Not into billionaires, period. Not into what capitalism needs to thrive or what it encourages. Not into a lot of things. But I have an iPhone, I drive a car, I wear clothes from god-knows-where, I order from Amazon from time to time, I have A/C units and use them in the summer, I water my lawn occasionally, I've begun to despise the homeless near my home, and so forth. Hell, I think there is something inherently racist about the landscape of professional sports themselves. ie I'm a person and we all make choices we aren't happy about. One of the obvious things we encounter is the inevitable. The team WILL be sold at some point. And in this example of who is going to buy the Trail Blazers AND keep them in Portland, Phil Knight seems like a good candidate...
It's not baiting. Just pointing out hypocrisies people have. It's not like you don't continuously try to insult me. It's ok if a potential owner from Nike treats workers overseas like absolute shit. But, not ok for someone to be in pictures with a despicable person who may or may not have known about that persons activities. I've been in plenty of pictures with a friends dad who got busted for soliciting prostitution. Must mean I knew he was soliciting prostitution and have done it myself from time to time too, right? Jobs could be a terrible person. I have no idea what she has or has not done in terms of human trafficking. Knight doesn't seem like he is a bad person, he just owned a company that has done bad things. He would have known about those things being the CEO. I agree with you that billionaires suck. Most, if not all, have done bad things to get to where they are, or stay where they are. Hard to reconcile that when rooting for a sports team you enjoy.
sscamaro3 Gilberto (NOT a sockpuppet) • a month ago • edited Gil, I'm not a Duck fan nor a avid follower of Mr, Knight. Rather, I'm one who appreciates success and admire the Knight's who follow their dreams and succeed. Mr. Knight's passion is in sports. But you error when you claim he hasn't been generous to academics. Ask both OU or Stanford who have been gifted programs or facilities for academics. Your 90's complaint is bunk. Stay with me. I have a long standing friend who worked for Nike two-plus decades and traveled to their Chinese factories. Visiting their most rural factory, he excepted conditions to be stark but was surprised to see the employees dress better than he did on the Beaverton Nike campus. Facilities were very clean. At the time his children were small so he visited the Nike campus daycare facility and found it to be immaculate and the children healthy and happy. The factory conditions were excellent. And the wages, when compared to other industries, were generous. At the same time, the local media (your bedfellows) were questioning a Nike Exec about the factory conditions and he agreed to discuss it with anyone having visited the facilities. Silence. Typical. The snotty Duck Students hadn't a clue of life, business or markets. Only the Marxist tripe fed to them on campus. Knight was currently pledging $200 million for new facilities and was taken aback by Oregon's outburst. Frohnmayer\ was correct in dismissing student protest since it was based on a lie and not the truth of factory condition. Not surprising you side with the students. You complain about Nike as if they don't pay any taxes which is nonsense. You're is yet one more Leftist rant lacking substance. Again, I do not genuflect at the altar of Knight. But I appreciate his charity to the universities he attended. Both athletics and academics. And I'm not a fan of China. But accuracy is important and the prevailing Leftist image of the 90's was inaccurate. A final note. Why would you complain that Knight's attempt to make U of Oregon a national brand? He hasn't the power of the SEC but his efforts were noteworthy. He also helped retain OSU baseball coach Pat Casey when Mr, Casey was offered a position at LSU. Oregon is a GameDay favorite due to the efforts and charity of Mr, Knight. Yet you complain. Again, typical. And this from an OSU al
Is this from some random forum we are supposed to believe? I'm not trying to get into an argument about Nike practices. I'm just saying, most billionaires have things in their closets. I would be fine with Knight being the owner given the choices. I still think a female led ownership would be a great thing though. If people think Jobs is a Pedo than why not Scott? Is she somehow connected based on some picture out there? Edit: ah. A comment from the Willamette Week. That's where I go to get my truthful news.
I'd prefer Knight. But Scott would be good too. I don't think you can generally find much cleaner billionaires than those two. Possibly jobs. But it would make sense to have Knight take Portland, Jobs take Vegas, and Scott take Seattle.
Bezos sucks so maybe Scott was privy to his moves. Dunno. I'd love some closure and an owner that wants to win. Knight does seem dedicated to winning.
Her philanthropic activities since the divorce have made me trust that she's a good person, or at least wants to do good with her money. With billionaires I'm not sure if we can expect much more than that.
I like this idea. How about an outdoor ice rink and eating/shopping tourist circle around it with a few sports bars?
Let's be real, it's not just most billionaires that have things in their closet. Most people have things in their closet. My experience has been that the ones who are the quickiest to turn the light on others are doing it to keep it off whatever they're hiding. I have yet to see a potential owner listed who couldn't be canceled for one reason or another. I assumed the NBA and their owners are unlikely to allow a new owner to come in who does not at least meet some level of ethical standards. I think it's also clear, that no matter who is selected, will have opposition, including from those on this board who are of a higher moral authority.
Agreed 100%. I hate the moral authority thing because it varies so much. Just because I care so much about health care and rights for disabled folks, doesn't mean i'm a bad person for not putting all my energy into another social issue. And vice versa for others. If someone is dedicated to fighting racial injustice, great. But i'm not going to fling shit at them and tell them they are horrible for not only focusing on the homeless.
Interesting. The over-the-top political nature of the rant actually makes me LESS supportive of Knight. If the MAGA-hats like him, there really must be something awful lurking in his closet.
he's bi political and his side kick partner is a staunch democrat. He supported Kitzhaber to the hilt.
