Arian Foster fires back at Anheuser-Busch

[Tron]

.

If ab are so concerned about domestic violence why don't they pull their products off the market. That will greatly help reduce the rate of violence in any society.

.

I doubt that. If I went to a store to buy some bud light and they told me AB no longer sells beer, I'd just buy another brand of beer, as would the rest of the world who drinks AB. They wouldn't just stop drinking beer because AB stopped selling beer.

 

[jrry32]

Absolutely! In every case addicts choose to abuse drugs and alcohol to the point of addiction. At some point they must choose to seek treatment and choose to recover - or not.

So then a car accident is a choice? Cancer is a choice? Death is a choice? Come on. You're beyond reaching.

 

[AZRamsFan93]

So then a car accident is a choice? Cancer is a choice? Death is a choice? Come on. You're beyond reaching.

Can you get in a car accident by opening a bottle? Can you get cancer by popping a pill? Who is reaching? We clearly are not going to agree, so I am out on this thread. Feel free to finish up with the last word if you so desire.

 

[jrry32]

Can you get in a car accident by opening a bottle? Can you get cancer by popping a pill? Who is reaching? We clearly are not going to agree, so I am out on this thread. Feel free to finish up with the last word if you so desire.

No, you can only get into a car accident by choosing to drive a car. Assuming it's not genetic, you get cancer from one or more life choices. You're claiming something is a choice because there was a choice made IN THE PAST that led to that point. It's a terrible stance to take.

Being an alcoholic is not a choice. Being addicted to drugs is not a choice. Yea, neither of those things would have happened if you made the choice to never take a sip of alcohol or try a drug...but that same line of logic holds that a car accident is a choice because you, at some point, made the decision to drive the car. It holds that cancer is a choice because at some point, you made the choice to partake in whatever it was that caused your cancer(whether it was smoking, radiation, etc.).

It's illogical. And far beyond reaching. It's far beyond grasping at straws.

I will have the last word because your logic here is offensive...and for what reason...to defend AB? They don't deserve it any more than Philip Morris deserves a defense. They're a business and they have a right to make their money legally but lets not act like the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and booze have any place questioning the morals and ethics of another business.

 

[Ken]

No, you can only get into a car accident by choosing to drive a car. Assuming it's not genetic, you get cancer from one or more life choices. You're claiming something is a choice because there was a choice made IN THE PAST that led to that point. It's a terrible stance to take.

Being an alcoholic is not a choice. Being addicted to drugs is not a choice. Yea, neither of those things would have happened if you made the choice to never take a sip of alcohol or try a drug...but that same line of logic holds that a car accident is a choice because you, at some point, made the decision to drive the car. It holds that cancer is a choice because at some point, you made the choice to partake in whatever it was that caused your cancer(whether it was smoking, radiation, etc.).

It's illogical. And far beyond reaching. It's far beyond grasping at straws.

I will have the last word because your logic here is offensive...and for what reason...to defend AB? They don't deserve it any more than Philip Morris deserves a defense. They're a business and they have a right to make their money legally but lets not act like the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and booze have any place questioning the morals and ethics of another business.

They do if they are the biggest single commercial sponsor of that other business and they feel that business is making questionable decisions that are generating a ton of bad PR. You might not think they should have a place, but they have, by far, the largest mansion in NFL city.

 

[jrry32]

They do if they are the biggest single commercial sponsor of that other business and they feel that business is making questionable decisions that are generating a ton of bad PR. You might not think they should have a place, but they have, by far, the largest mansion in NFL city.

No, they don't. Based on how they make their money, they have no place questioning the morals or ethics of another business. It's a farce if they do.

Don't like the way the NFL is handling it due to the PR, talk to them behind the scenes. You just look like a joke releasing a public statement when you make your money doing something far more ethically questionable. Don't try to play the white knight with what you do.

 

[Thordaddy]

No, they don't. Based on how they make their money, they have no place questioning the morals or ethics of another business. It's a farce if they do.

Don't like the way the NFL is handling it due to the PR, talk to them behind the scenes. You just look like a joke releasing a public statement when you make your money doing something far more ethically questionable. Don't try to play the white knight with what you do.

I know I know,I said i was gone, but I lied, bottom line is this ,WHEN you come out to judge the moral constructs of another ,you give implied consent to examine yours, it's a whack a mole environment on that front, AB's product directly destroys lives that is without question,it also provides a lot of enjoyment ,but once hooked addicted it takes a significant amount of suspension of disbelief to deny it's effects
The next block down from where I grew up there was one dad who'd get drunk on Sat. night come home and beat his son, down the street there was a guy who'd get drunk and come home and kick the shit out of his wife. That was the 50's and nobody said ANYTHING nor did anything, that town was full of alcoholics ,when those guys were sober they were nice guys who people had no difficulty with.
Again AB decided to throw their hat in the ring PUBLICLY, if someone decided to take issue with it, maybe they should have given some consideration to their own vulnerability

BTW NO WAY AB pulls there adds and give Miller and Coors and Sam Adams the target audience ,saber rattling IMNTBHO

 

[Alan]

Lets hope that something gets done about the issue of DV when all is said and done. That's my bottom line.

 

[Thordaddy]

Lets hope that something gets done about the issue of DV when all is said and done. That's my bottom line.

Yeah I agree , but we can walk and chew gum at the same time,and FWIW no one has yet proven to me that their decision as to what the issue they want complete focus upon is their right to define , DV is tremendously exacerbated where alcohol is involved ,it's not a diversion to say so it's merely delving past where some want to draw their lines.

 

[Sum1]

Pepsi is now making a statement about this situation. Don't they realize soda causes diabetes and kills people? Hypocrites.

 

[Ken]

No, they don't. Based on how they make their money, they have no place questioning the morals or ethics of another business. It's a farce if they do.

Don't like the way the NFL is handling it due to the PR, talk to them behind the scenes. You just look like a joke releasing a public statement when you make your money doing something far more ethically questionable. Don't try to play the white knight with what you do.

I didn't say it wasn't a farce, or that I agreed with it or thought it was wise to do. I agree AB should not have made a public statement. But you can't say they don't have a place with the amount of $s they put in NFL coffers. The fact that DV and alcohol are linked in the experience of many victims is probably making them very uneasy, and therefore disappointed in the snafu Goodell has created. If it leads to his firing and real change in how the NFL and the justice system deal with this issue, then at least some good will have come from it.

 

[jrry32]

I didn't say it wasn't a farce, or that I agreed with it or thought it was wise to do. I agree AB should not have made a public statement. But you can't say they don't have a place with the amount of $s they put in NFL coffers. The fact that DV and alcohol are linked in the experience of many victims is probably making them very uneasy, and therefore disappointed in the snafu Goodell has created. If it leads to his firing and real change in how the NFL and the justice system deal with this issue, then at least some good will have come from it.

Goodell isn't getting fired. I'm not disagreeing the AB has the right to complain at the NFL for the bad PR. Just disagreeing with them doing it publicly and loving the way Foster called them out on it.

 

[blue4]

[QUOTE="Sum1, post: 404865, memberepsi is now making a statement about this situation. Don't they realize soda causes diabetes and kills people? Hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

Visa has also made complaints. I hope people realize that their high interest rates lead to people making bad decisions. They don't deserve a say in this. Credit card debt is a leading cause of domestic issues and we all know now that nothing is our fault.
Only pure members of society should comment. No brewers, winemakers, bankers, lawyers, paycheck loaners, pawn shop owners, makers of plastic and other things people could use to pollute, farmers, workers in coal, oil companies, big pharma, psychiatrists, union members, chamber of commerce members, outsourcers, strip miners allowed.

Athletes, of course, can still call out who they want.


Of course if we all felt that the sponsers were dirty and the NFL wasn't doing enough to stop the DV trend we could actually take some small responsibility and tune out the games for a couple of weeks.
Nah!! Lets just keep pretending we're on the moral high ground.

 

[Alan]

The level of sarcasm is getting awfully high isn't it? We're all brother & sister Ram fans right?

 

[blue4]

The level of sarcasm is getting awfully high isn't it? We're all brother a& sister Ram fans right?

You're right. I think I'm going to call it quits.

 

[Thordaddy]

Goodell isn't getting fired. I'm not disagreeing the AB has the right to complain at the NFL for the bad PR. Just disagreeing with them doing it publicly and loving the way Foster called them out on it.

I 'm not even saying AB shouldn't have said what they did, I'm saying since they did they need to be prepared for making themselves a target in view of the dark side of how they make their profits ,I'm ALL FOR their free speech as much as I am for Fosters,just think if I'd have been an AB exec. I'd have probably said all I had to say to the league office and skipped the risk of coming off as being selective in my outrage.
Again AB's product is and always should be legal IMO you can't have a free nor virtuous society if you eliminate peoples "bad" choices,virtue comes from making the" right" choice not from knuckling under.
It's being reported that the NFLPA is supporting Ray Rices appeal,let's see if the union catches as much heat as Roger.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ate-partner-for-its-breast-cancer-initiative/

NFL loses a corporate partner for its breast cancer initiative
Posted by Michael David Smith on September 19, 2014

Getty Images

The NFL doesn’t seem to be losing any money over the ongoing domestic violence mess, but it is losing plenty of good will.

The latest example of that comes from the folks at Procter & Gamble, who have decided they don’t want their brand to be affiliated with the NFL during Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Procter & Gamble had been planning to sponsor an initiative where one player on each team would use a pink mouth guard in October, with the players raising awareness about breast cancer and Procter & Gamble donating money.

Now, according to Jason La Canfora of CBS, Procter & Gamble has decided to go ahead with the monetary donation but scrap the plans for the pink mouth guards, because Procter & Gamble isn’t comfortable with playing a part in the NFL’s efforts to appeal to women at a time when the NFL is facing criticism for players abusing women.

There was a time when it would have been unthinkable that any corporate entity wouldn’t want to be associated with a brand as popular as the NFL and a feel-good cause like breast cancer awareness, but that time was before the Ray Rice elevator video became public.

With October just around the corner, the NFL is sure to face withering scrutiny about the fact that it dons pink clothing when it wants to appeal to female fans, but doesn’t act quickly when players commit acts of violence against women.