Posted by Solace:

Posted by tomverve:

The amount of money Marbury may be making off of it is irrelevant to the question of whether the shoe line is doing social good. Maybe the amount of money he's netting makes a difference to whether you want to call him a philanthropist or whether you call the whole process a charity. If you have a problem with using those terms I think you have a valid point. But even if you think Marbury is just a tycoon in this whole game, I don't think it changes the reasonable idea that the cheap sneakers are having some positive effects for poorer kids. Why some folks want to go so far out of their way all the time to make sure nothing positive is ever associated with Marbury is beyond me.

That's the main point and I think most agree with you. He's getting credit when in reality he's in it for the money. He's certainly not doing a negative thing; it does have a positive effect on some. But I can't give him a lot of credit as a philanthropist either, since it really amounts to a saavy business move.

It's like when people donate old clothes that they'll never wear again, to charity. While a nice gesture, for many it amounts to, "I was never going to wear these again, and the tax refund is nice". Certainly they're not doing a bad thing, but clearly there's another motive involved. People who are saying the same about Marbury are correct.

Posted by Nalod:

I have been begging for Marbury to donate his profits as a methoed of making the effort legitimate.

Is marbury more cool than alternative NBA stars? Is it the "I don't give a Phuck" cool more a factor in selling sneakers than on court success?

Posted by TrueBlue:
Yo Marbury just don't give a Phuck, he's selling shoes to his people for the LOW LOW. I gotta go out there and support my N*G but while I am, you best believe I'll cop a couple extra of the fire and sell it right back on the street and line my pockets. Ya know gotta move the movement

Posted by RemBee76:

Posted by TrueBlue:
Yo Marbury just don't give a Phuck, he's selling shoes to his people for the LOW LOW. I gotta go out there and support my N*G but while I am, you best believe I'll cop a couple extra of the fire and sell it right back on the street and line my pockets. Ya know gotta move the movement

Wow, True, your posts are really getting more erudite. Keep doing the exercises in your Scholastic workbook, and you might earn that Clifford lunch-box yet.

WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP


I encourage you to visit the Hood sometime, it can be very entertaining and informative. It will help you understand the street and movements.

Posted by Nalod:


Lets say some of us are not "hating" on the "movement".

Im slapping it down to where should be.

When he proclaims he is "changing the world" I just gotta laugh. He is ain't "Ghandi" or "Peter Pumkin Head" for that matter, just a guy endorsing a shoe marketed to the very low end.

Second point is how good a shoe it is for $15.99. Its a great shoe! I'd easily have paid $17.99 for that god awful piece of crap.

Maybe the shoe is kind of like him. Looks good on the outside and appears to do the job but lacks "SOLE"!

Posted by highfivesucka:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by tomverve:

The amount of money Marbury may be making off of it is irrelevant to the question of whether the shoe line is doing social good. Maybe the amount of money he's netting makes a difference to whether you want to call him a philanthropist or whether you call the whole process a charity. If you have a problem with using those terms I think you have a valid point. But even if you think Marbury is just a tycoon in this whole game, I don't think it changes the reasonable idea that the cheap sneakers are having some positive effects for poorer kids. Why some folks want to go so far out of their way all the time to make sure nothing positive is ever associated with Marbury is beyond me.

That's the main point and I think most agree with you. He's getting credit when in reality he's in it for the money. He's certainly not doing a negative thing; it does have a positive effect on some. But I can't give him a lot of credit as a philanthropist either, since it really amounts to a saavy business move.

It's like when people donate old clothes that they'll never wear again, to charity. While a nice gesture, for many it amounts to, "I was never going to wear these again, and the tax refund is nice". Certainly they're not doing a bad thing, but clearly there's another motive involved. People who are saying the same about Marbury are correct.

I don't know if I agree with that. the ultimate result is that you have a winter coat and I get a small tax break, everybody wins. maybe it's just me but I don't see the problem here. I mean this is opposed to the alternative of someone giving nothing at all because there is no incentive outside of personal satisfaction.

I hate on marbs' game just as much as anyone else, but I really can't find any justifiable reason to talk bad about his shoes outside of his own shoes being produced in sweat shops (which they probably are.) and I don't think the argument that he should use his money to "solve world hunger" or something is valid. I'm pretty sure if money was the problem in feeding the hungry, it would have been solved long ago, because the main problem in for example underdeveloped countries is a lack of political, economic and industrial infrastructure to make large scale, long-term aid programs very hard to do, not a lack of money. and building homeless shelters or whatever aren't going to do anything because most homeless people either get kicked out of shelters for causing trouble/drug abuse/being violent, and others just don't want to go to the shelters because they know they're going to get raped/robed/etc.

an affordable shoe line is not the end all be all solution to every problem in the world but it's a practical approach to a problem and marbury has deservedly gotten praise for it, it's simple and the idea is good, although whether or not it actually works is another question (honestly would you wear them to school when you know everyone else knows they're $15?)