Kings & Playing Politics

Bac2Basics · Post #1 » by **Bac2Basics** » Thu May 13, 2010 2:10 am

There are two topics that occurred to me, and while either could warrant it's own thread, I figured I'd combine the two.

1 - If the immigration law in Arizona is still an issue by the next NBA season, do you expect the Kings to boycott going to Phoenix for a game or some other type of protest?

2 - As Arco is part of BP, and the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a BP rig, do you expect any kind of boycott at the arena?

Dustin5566 · Post #2 » by **Dustin5566** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:17 am

no and no

RIPskaterdude · Post #3 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:20 am

No. Sports teams should stay out of politics.

Post #4 » by **KingInExile** » Thu May 13, 2010 5:20 am

Arco has no connection to BP other than the fact that both are in the oil industry. Arco wasn't boycotted after the Exxon-Valdez spill...which they also had no involvement in...so there should be no reason for them to get caught in a boycott due to BP's disaster in the gulf. It would be like boycotting Costco because WalMart screws its employees.

As for the Arizona situation, it's pointless for individual sports teams to boycott individual games. Life is going to go on regardless of how moronic a state's politicians act. The only way any sporting events would carry any weight in a boycott is if it were for a game with national interest, like the all star game. Even at that, it would have to be a league-wide decision...not individual players or owners...to make any kind of a statement.

RekeHavoc · Post #5 » by **RekeHavoc** » Thu May 13, 2010 5:36 am

Umm no to both? No offense but either of those would be (Please Use More Appropriate Word). So we're going to boycott going to Arizona and give the Suns 2 automatic wins? Jeez if teams did that they'll probably just make more offensive laws and go 82-0! :roll:

Heck maybe WE should start making some offensive laws if it gets the other team to forfeit! :lol:

And why would we not go to a KINGS game because the Arena's naming rights were bought by an oil company that may be slightly connected to another oil company that was at the fault of an oil spill? That's like punching your brother in the face because your sister set you up with a transvestite. If you have a problem with the oil company maybe you should hold a march on it or something or write your congressmen, not protest a basketball game.

longfellow44 · Post #6 » by **longfellow44** » Thu May 13, 2010 5:48 am

I fully support a Boycott on playing games in Arizona. I'll take the 2 losses and chalk it up to being a good Human Being. Steve Kerr made a bold move in the way that he addressed the situation and there is a time and a place to use your fame and position to draw more attention to an injustice and this is one of those times. This isn't even a political issue left or right of the isle this comes down to violation of basic rights.

RIPskaterdude · Post #7 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Thu May 13, 2010 6:25 am

longfellow44 wrote:I fully support a Boycott on playing games in Arizona. I'll take the 2 losses and chalk it up to being a good Human Being. Steve Kerr made a bold move in the way that he addressed the situation and there is a time and a place to use your fame and position to draw more attention to an injustice and this is one of those times. This isn't even a political issue left or right of the isle this comes down to violation of basic rights.

Wrong. You do realize that they changed the bill, right? They can only check people's ID if they are in the process of committing a crime. They no longer can just walk down the street and ask a random person for their "papers", even though being an illegal immigrant in the first place IS A CRIME.

But this is the wrong board for me to get into that topic. Either way, sports teams are ENTERTAINMENT. Entertainment should stay OUT of politics. I'm paying to see basketball, not to see them forfeit two games so that I can feel like a "good human being". :roll:

Bac2Basics · Post #8 » by **Bac2Basics** » Thu May 13, 2010 7:37 am

KingInExile wrote:Arco has no connection to BP other than the fact that both are in the oil industry. Arco wasn't boycotted after the Exxon-Valdez spill...which they also had no involvement in...so there should be no reason for them to get caught in a boycott due to BP's disaster in the gulf. It would be like boycotting Costco because WalMart screws its employees.

As for the Arizona situation, it's pointless for individual sports teams to boycott individual games. Life is going to go on regardless of how moronic a state's politicians act. The only way any sporting events would carry any weight in a boycott is if it were for a game with national interest, like the all star game. Even at that, it would have to be a league-wide decision...not individual players or owners...to make any kind of a statement.

Then why on many of the Arco gas station signs say that Arco is a BP company and have BP's logo on it?

Post #9 » by **ICMTM** » Thu May 13, 2010 4:31 pm

BP owns Arco! My Ford recommends that I use 87 BP octane. There hasn't been any BP gasoline stations here since I can remember. I have seen them in other parts of the country. Anyhow through research I learned BP owns Arco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCO

Also I don't think there will be a big fall out because we are on the West Coast. If we were in a Gulf State maybe there would be a bigger fall out.

I don't think boycotting AZ is the answer, but I'd recommend people to read the bill before they comment on it.

longfellow44 · Post #10 » by **longfellow44** » Thu May 13, 2010 6:53 pm

Using Celebrity to get politically involved is perfectly OK. It's one of the perks, Sir Charles was always advocating social awareness and political action. If you have the ability to change something because people like you then feel free to flex your popularity in order to change the world if you can.

RIPskaterdude · Post #11 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Fri May 14, 2010 3:33 am

longfellow44 wrote:Using Celebrity to get politically involved is perfectly OK. It's one of the perks, Sir Charles was always advocating social awareness and political action. If you have the ability to change something because people like you then feel free to flex your popularity in order to change the world if you can.

longfellow44 · Post #12 » by **longfellow44** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:24 am

^^what is wrong with my statement? If you felt strongly about something wouldn't you use whaever means you had at your disposal to draw attention to the situation and hopefully make a change?

Dustin5566 · Post #13 » by **Dustin5566** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:27 am

This thread is Smills' wet dream.

Bac2Basics · Post #14 » by **Bac2Basics** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:16 am

Dustin5566 wrote:This thread is Smills' wet dream.

That didn't occur to me when I created the thread, but I guess it would have some strong opinions on these topics if he were still around.

longfellow44 · Post #15 » by **longfellow44** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:26 am

Oh he's still around even if he's just lurking right now, a ball boy will pop up at some point somewhere with an outlandish opinion or a controvertial valuation of a kings player and skills will be there. Like a stalker in the night he awaits a chance nay an opportunity to put his stamp on this message board. He will appear under the guise of a new name as if to say " I will not go quietly into the night, I will not vanish without a fight, I'm going to live on, I'm going to survive, For this day is I celebrate my independece day" well he's saying something like that atleast.

RIPskaterdude · Post #16 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:34 am

longfellow44 wrote:^^what is wrong with my statement? If you felt strongly about something wouldn't you use whaever means you had at your disposal to draw attention to the situation and hopefully make a change?

Um...no. Using your celebrity status to "get what you want" is a terrible idea.

RekeHavoc · Post #17 » by **RekeHavoc** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:45 am

longfellow44 wrote:^^what is wrong with my statement? If you felt strongly about something wouldn't you use whaever means you had at your disposal to draw attention to the situation and hopefully make a change?

Because just because you have celebrity status doesn't mean you know best or are an expert about something, it just means you're popular so a lot of people will listen to you. Trust me, telling 15 NBA players that they can't play 2 regular season games which are going to count as losses and may hurt their playoff chances isn't going to end well. An all star game boycott/location change is different. But those games count on your record.

longfellow44 · Post #18 » by **longfellow44** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:49 am

That is a completely assanine way of interperting what i said.

My point is using your popularity to advocate and draw attention to something you believe in
or have strong feelings about is perfectly acceptable. I'll go further with that, if you believe strongly In Something you have a duty to yourself to do what you are capable of to see that change in the world happens.

KM44 · Post #19 » by **KM44** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:50 am

Dustin5566 wrote:This thread is Smills' wet dream.

I was just thinking that. What happened to him? I haven't been around much lately

longfellow44 · Post #20 » by **longfellow44** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:58 am

He got banned.