Nike had sold discounted and out-of-season items at the Northeast neighborhood factory store since 1984.
Not a flagship Nike store, but a flagship “community factory store”….a low profit discount out of season outlet store.

Last year the store quietly shuttered its doors due to internal and external theft and safety issues. With expensive and small/lightweight stock and absolutely no anti theft security in place and police too busy joking about running over citizens to even try to arrest shoplifters, it’s hardly surprising they became targets for petty theft by employees and customers.

Nike did not provide a specific reason for the permanent closure and said it is considering future locations in the area, not that they were abandoning it because of high crime. Sounds like they just need a more secure building. Nice try.

"Nike’s commitment to supporting and uplifting Portland’s North and Northeast community is unwavering. We are reimagining Nike’s retail space, permanently closing our current location at 2650 NE Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and considering future locations as part of this community’s long term revitalization plan,"

"You shall not pass" - Martin Luther King Jr.

One of the ways in which Martin Luther broke from the Catholic church was by not seeing marriage as sacramental: he wanted to be able to acknowledge marriage between non-Christians rather than just marriage between Christians. Thus, from the perspective of Protestant theology, it's not clear that the church should have much to do with marriage. (This was most succinctly summarised for me thus: have a civil wedding, and then come back to the church for potato salad and a party.)

What about the civil arrangement, then? For me, the clearest argument for a non-paternalistic state granting some people preferable treatment (e.g. untaxed inheritance, etc.) is that those people are reducing the burden on the state somehow. In the 'traditional marriage', they do this partly by providing (on average) a more stable environment in which to raise children (thus, raising somehow more productive - on average - citizens for the state), and partly by caring for each other in their old age (thus, saving the state costs). From this point of view, whether or not they have sex, on whatever basis, with each other is irrelevant: an adult son living with and caring for his elderly mother is saving the state in the same way that an wife caring for her husband is. Thus, when France introduced its 'pacte civil', I thought that they missed the opportunity to get right out of the bedroom.

Your video, If Martin Luther King had a Sneaker Deal with Nike, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Advertisers didn't put this on our screens? Who did then? The Keebler Elves? The Commercial Fairy? Aliens?
No, advertisers made it, for Dodge (yes I know Dodge is owned by Fiat, but that doesn't get them off the hook imho) and they then ran it by the estate of Martin Luther King Jr, who actually signed off on this.
The King family is however not pleased by this, which confuses me to no end as it sounds like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is up to.

X, drench the commuter like Martin Luther

And blacks in the west start miles ahead of blacks in Africa. So where do we draw the line? Equal opportunity and equal treatment are the very best we should be able to expect in this world because as soon as you put your thumb on the scales, one way or another, someone is going to feel cheated. That will, in turn, become resentment, fair or not, and the cycle will continue.

You trace back every persons family tree and you'll end up with both ancestors that had the boot on their neck, and ancestors who wore the boot. If we carry the sum of the sins of our forebears, then there is not a single person alive today that isn't guilty of some horrid event. A million monkeys with a million typewriters will eventually write Mein Kampf...

I agree with most of what the Governator said, and noted the things he didn't say eg. he didn't say it's okay to physically attack someone expressing a hateful idea.

More importantly, I think Daryl Davis has the solution:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a74895
96.html

Or Martin Luther King: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

Which is why you don't destroy history, you don't shout down people expressing hateful ideas, you do not dehumanise them and in not doing that, you do not become the monster you are trying to fight.

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

We had this event in Germany last week. A group of activists showed up with a statue of Martin Luther that had some quotes of his printed on his cape. Result: activists got removed by the cops and charged with incitement.

Guess people don't like to be reminded that Luther's antisemitism in 1524 might very easily be mistaken for quotes by Hitler.

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

"I have a dream."

God bless Martin Luther King.

I don't expect it in my time. But someday......

You know, things would have been so much easier if Rosa Parks, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and many others throughout history had simply complied.

not a surprising response as violence begets violence.

“The philosophy of nonviolence which I learned from Dr. Marin Luther King, Jr., during my involvement in the civil rights movement was first responsible for my change in diet…Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form. I felt the commandment ‘Thou Salt not kill’ applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other – war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like – but in their practice of killing animals for food or sport. Animals suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain…the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life.” – Dick Gregory

Makes you think he knew exactly what he was doing as Lex Luther haha

@billpayer
you are proceeding from a false premise.
nobody is singling you nor your video out for suppression.
which many here have tried to point out to you.
quite politely i might add,but you insist on some weird conspiracy.

do you identify with a video so much that a downvote is somehow directly related to how that sifter perceives you? and that by downvoting they are suppressing your right to free speech and making a social commentary simultaneously?

dude...you need to think this through,because you are coming across extremely paranoid.

by the way...
/speaks in hushed tones..
*it was @newtboy that shot JFK,and martin luther king AND my childhood dog poochie.damn you newtboy! damn you to hell!