Poll
8 votes (20.51%) | |||
15 votes (38.46%) | |||
22 votes (56.41%) | |||
12 votes (30.76%) | |||
5 votes (12.82%) | |||
2 votes (5.12%) | |||
3 votes (7.69%) | |||
3 votes (7.69%) | |||
5 votes (12.82%) |
39 members have voted
* Donald Sterling is, indeed, a racist; meaning, he believes those of different races are inferior to his ... forget the "racism is about power" angle ... the assumption is that racism is about race.
* Donald Sterling said those things.
* Donald Sterling has been known to be a racist for at least 13 years, and probably longer.
* Donald Sterling said nothing illegal and should not be prosecuted in a court of law. This is not the same as the housing discrimination stuff, which is clearly illegal. This assumption is about what he said on the audiofile only.
* The NBA is a private organization and can choose who it wants to associate with and invite/uninvite to be among their own.
* The NBA knew Sterling was a racist for at least 13 years, and probably longer.
* Because the NBA knew for so long, it makes sense that somthing resembling the normal due diligence/due process didn't occur here.
You think OJ's dream team was good getting him off on murder, wait till you see a billionaire's dream team.
Quote: 4ofaKindI'm appalled by Sterling's comments, but with that being said; not sure what the NBA rules are for owners, but in the legal constitutional USA (whatever is left of it) these penalty's imposed by the NBA don't have a leg to stand on.
You think OJ's dream team was good getting him off on murder, wait till you see a billionaire's dream team.
Unless the NBA governing documents are found "unconstitutional" for some reason, the NBA following them is not a constitutional issue.
Quote: MrWarmth
* Donald Sterling has been known to be a racist for at least 13 years, and probably longer.
Wait! The man is 80 years old. I don't think he started being a racist at age 67. It is safe to remove the 'probably'. Lol.
I'm unclear as to her motive, but obviously she was pissed.
While I do not share Sterling's views on race, it seems he should be free to say and believe pretty much whatever he wants, in private.
So what if he personally has an aversion to blacks?
Lots of blacks don't much care for whites, either; just the way it is, and nobody is beating their breasts over it.
Silver came out swinging in order to cement his position as the new king, and also to win the support of the players and the public; it was a bold play, one which could blow up in his face.
Whether the action will stand up in court depends on the terms / rules the owners are required to abide by, which I understand is in their (private) constitution, which members of the public don't get to see: if I am wrong on this point, please correct me, and point out the applicable language.
It will be interesting to see whether he sues, or arbitrates if that's what the rules require.
I believe the penalty imposed was extreme, yet I can understand why Silver said and did what he did; most of the Clippers, indeed most of the NBA players are black, and Sterling's private remarks, now in the public domain, are incendiary.
Old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."
There is no way Sterling would have been able to keep the team after his comments and that is the publics and the players right to boycott him. My issue is what happened to due process? If he violated bi-laws he agreed to, then fine him as done and let the financial hits come to a point where he would have no choice but to sell and maybe even at a loss from peak value. But to stop people from voicing their opinions is very risky when you look at it from an objective perspective.
Quote: WizardWhat does the V stand for?
Verycreativegolddigger
* you can vote for more than one item
* V doesn't stand for anything; as I understand it, V Stiviano is not her given name, she changed it due to she says she was a child of rape and she didn't believe she was being accepted because of her race (Latina). I think her given name was Vivian.
* the comment about the Magic owner came from Limbaugh. I didn't hear him say that DeVos was indeed being targeted, only that this same line of thinking would cause one to predict it
* being against gay marriage, or at least donating to a ballot measure campaign against it, already cost that Mozilla founder his job
* I don't think Sterling became a racist at 67, either, it's just the first well-known exposure of it (the housing discrimination suit)
The NBA can do what it wants and its owners can agree to whatever they want so long as it's not illegal. If they wanted to oust an owner because he was bald, they should be able to. Also, if they wanted to allow only KKK, they could. The public will "vote with their feet," I would think.
Usually, I would say that the lack of due process bothers me, but there seems to be enough evidence that it might not have been necessary. So that puts it squarely on the NBA and the people-of-colors-that-Sterling-hates who took his money and kept their mouths shut. I know jobs in the NBA are at a premium and very ego-boosting, but anyone who would boost their ego at the expense of allowing Sterling to go on is, IMHO, a coward. That said, I don't know what I would've done given the choice.
I do think Sterling should not be legally prosecuted for what he says/believes, so long as he doesn't incite violence. This is 'murica, you have the right to be an ass.
I also think going after DeVos would be an overcorrect, but I also think the NBA is within its rights to do it. If the NBA chooses to go the route of, say, MSNBC, then it can expect the same popularity level.
Posted 23 hours ago, NOT from Limbaugh.
Quote: Bozhttp://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/while-were-on-the-subject-the-orlando-magics-owner-is-vehemently-opposed-to-gay-rights/
Posted 23 hours ago, NOT from Limbaugh.
I didn't say Limbaugh broke it, I said he commented on the slippery-slope aspect of it. What's wrong with hearing what Limbaugh has to say? This article appears to want DeVos's head ... maybe he is being targeted.
Apparently, the NBA is NOT "a place for everyone." That's perfectly fine, it can be what it wants. I just hate holier-than-thou articles that say "a place for everyone" in the same breath it says "there's no place for bigots or anti-gay-marriage people." O'Donnell would have my respect (not that he seeks it) if he would acknowledge the free-market nature of the right to association.
Quote: MrWarmthUsually, I would say that the lack of due process bothers me, but there seems to be enough evidence that it might not have been necessary. So that puts it squarely on the NBA and the people-of-colors-that-Sterling-hates who took his money and kept their mouths shut. I know jobs in the NBA are at a premium and very ego-boosting, but anyone who would boost their ego at the expense of allowing Sterling to go on is, IMHO, a coward. That said, I don't know what I would've done given the choice.
Given the number of bosses in the world, a certain number of bosses are likely true d***s, but employees aren't usually paid to let the boss know what they think. And people who want to be employed don't say anything. So, there may be a lot of cowards out there, by that standard. Most aren't on million dollar contracts either.
This boss put himself in a hole. Now his employees are kicking the dirt in. Maybe not admirable, or stuff of heroes or saints, but not unexpected given the perceptions on both sides.
Quote: rxwineGiven the number of bosses in the world, a certain number of bosses are likely true d***s, but employees aren't usually paid to let the boss know what they think. And people who want to be employed don't say anything. So, there may be a lot of cowards out there, by that standard. Most aren't on million dollar contracts either.
This boss put himself in a hole. Now his employees are kicking the dirt in. Maybe not admirable, or stuff of heroes or saints, but not unexpected given the perceptions on both sides.
Yeah, that's true, and like I say, I don't know what I would do in the same shoes. I've put up with more feces than I care to admit because I needed the money. I just don't think people who do that and then "kick the dirt in" can be called "brave" or "courageous," etc., see also Adam Silver. Silver did the right thing, but only under sufficient "cover" ... at least, I didn't see him working to get rid of Sterling before the tape came out.
EDIT: I would also add that those employed in the NBA don't "need" the money in the same sense a $60,000/yr working stiff with a house and two kids does. Doc Rivers didn't "need" the money in that sense. He wanted it ... he could still feed his family and his lifestyle without it, and he would be eminently employable.
What I do know is that none of those folks spoke up, while V. Stiviano did (sort of). She's something of a left-handed heroine, but a heroine nonetheless in that she risked something to call Sterling out. My little poll's biggest vote-getter is that she's a gold-digger. It's true, but now it's pat of the pop culture. Doc Rivers, etc., didn't risk anything.
(Apologies to Elgin Baylor, who evidently did although after-the-fact, and any others who called him out and were trounced for it.)
Quote: BozI heard something today that the next target of liberals in the NBA is Rich DeVos, owner of the Orlando Magic because he is against Gay Marriage. Not condoning Sterling here, but where does it stop? Mark Cuban had it right before he was probably called by the Commish about his comments when he said this is a "Slippery Slope".
There is no way Sterling would have been able to keep the team after his comments and that is the publics and the players right to boycott him. My issue is what happened to due process? If he violated bi-laws he agreed to, then fine him as done and let the financial hits come to a point where he would have no choice but to sell and maybe even at a loss from peak value. But to stop people from voicing their opinions is very risky when you look at it from an objective perspective.
WRT due process link
I think the reality is that gay marriage is not a concern for the NBA, whereas racial discrimination is.
I'm not sure if voting out Sterling will a slippery slope to a situation where owners can band together and arbitrary vote out other owners. This fear will cause future potential ownership groups to rethink acquiring a NBA franchise, hurting the valuation of all franchises.
Sure, the by-laws or whatever can be written so that it *could*, but no decent businessman would agree to it and it would lower the value of the franchises. I'm not sure I would buy the Lakers for $1,000 if the other owners or the association could strip me of it because my farts smelled too bad.
EDIT: Yeah. Yeah, I would buy the Lakers for $1,000.
Quote: WizardWhat does the V stand for?
Vendetta
Think about what Marge Schott said, she was only suspended for a couple of years. But then again MLB doesn't have a Jewish majority in the league. I'm sure Marge and Donald would have really got along...lol
Also being a racist, it seems odd he was with her in the first place.
Quote: flyingnite
I think the reality is that gay marriage is not a concern for the NBA, whereas racial discrimination is.
Also, iirc, a majority of black people also oppose gay marriage.
Quote: MrWarmthI didn't say Limbaugh broke it, I said he commented on the slippery-slope aspect of it. What's wrong with hearing what Limbaugh has to say? This article appears to want DeVos's head ... maybe he is being targeted.
Apparently, the NBA is NOT "a place for everyone." That's perfectly fine, it can be what it wants. I just hate holier-than-thou articles that say "a place for everyone" in the same breath it says "there's no place for bigots or anti-gay-marriage people." O'Donnell would have my respect (not that he seeks it) if he would acknowledge the free-market nature of the right to association.
Look at your post. Why even put Limbaugh in it? Mark Cuban started with the "slippery slope" on Sunday night. Rachel Nicoles of CNN talked about the DeVos story on Tuesday night and I commented on it. Yet you tried to say it was because of Limbaugh.
I would love for you to explain why you had to bring Limbaugh into it?
Quote: MrWarmthThanks everyone for the thoughtful response ..
*
* the comment about the Magic owner came from Limbaugh. I didn't hear him say that DeVos was indeed being targeted, only that this same line of thinking would cause one to predict it
.
Quote:Oprah Winfrey is in discussions with David Geffen and Larry Ellison to make a bid for the Los Angeles Clippers should the team become available,"
Quote: BozLook at your post. Why even put Limbaugh in it? Mark Cuban started with the "slippery slope" on Sunday night. Rachel Nicoles of CNN talked about the DeVos story on Tuesday night and I commented on it. Yet you tried to say it was because of Limbaugh.
I would love for you to explain why you had to bring Limbaugh into it?
For good or bad, agree or disagree, Limbaugh is one of the most influential commentators out there and is pretty much the voice of the conservative philosophy. As the conservatives make up about half of the electorate and the population, getting an idea of what they think and why they think it seems prudent. I referenced Limbaugh in my post because I wanted to reference Limbaugh. I don't think I need another reason, unless I missed something in the forum rules regarding Limbaugh.
In case you're worried about it, I'm not trying to proselytize anyone to Limbaugh ... I doubt I could if I was. Winning the internet is not possible or worth the effort.
This is your second post regarding Limbaugh, one distancing yourself and the other trying to get me to distance myself. I would love to know why referencing Limbaugh bothers you so much and why you feel the need to control a thread/person/opinion so badly as to try to shame me for referencing him. I'm new, so I went first on the "why." Please, share with us your "why."
Quote: Buzzard" What's wrong with hearing what Limbaugh has to say? " I just don't like fat rich guys who get the maid to buy their drugs .
Don't think anyone asked whether you liked him.
Quote: MrWarmth
What I do know is that none of those folks spoke up, while V. Stiviano did (sort of). She's something of a left-handed heroine, but a heroine nonetheless in that she risked something to call Sterling out. My little poll's biggest vote-getter is that she's a gold-digger. It's true, but now it's pat of the pop culture. Doc Rivers, etc., didn't risk anything.
I wouldn't call her a heroine. I don't see that she risked anything. If anything, and this is purely conjecture here, I imagine this was an attempted shakedown on her part. They're not together any more, and she's being sued by Ms. Sterling for the $1.5M condo and other goodies that Donald gave her, right? I can certainly see something like this going down:
V: Give me $XX,XXX,XXX.XX or I'm going public with the tape.
Sterling: Go ahead, sweetie*. Do whatever you want. I'm not giving you a dime.
... and the rest is history. I bet she got a pretty penny from TMZ, too.
If you are looking for someone to call out for this mess, I would definitely lay the bulk of the blame at David Stern's feet. If Sterling's views were common knowledge for years in NBA circles, as is being suggested, it was squarely Stren's job to do something about it while he was still the commish.
* - substitute ban-worthy epithet here.
Quote: WizardWhat does the V stand for?
Maria Vanessa Perez in October 1982 in Los Angeles, but successfully petitioned to change her name to V. Stiviano in 2010. There's no explanation for what the name means, but her stated reason in the court filing was, "Born from a rape case and having yet been fully accepted because of my race."
*edit* Wasn't the league-owners gonna meet today on topic?
Quote: BozI heard something today that the next target of liberals in the NBA is Rich DeVos, owner of the Orlando Magic because he is against Gay Marriage. Not condoning Sterling here, but where does it stop? Mark Cuban had it right before he was probably called by the Commish about his comments when he said this is a "Slippery Slope".
There is no way Sterling would have been able to keep the team after his comments and that is the publics and the players right to boycott him. My issue is what happened to due process? If he violated bi-laws he agreed to, then fine him as done and let the financial hits come to a point where he would have no choice but to sell and maybe even at a loss from peak value. But to stop people from voicing their opinions is very risky when you look at it from an objective perspective.
In that case what value do you place on the "image of the NBA"??? Certainly, this is NOT the image to be face-forward. Sterling's comments damage the league if unchecked. IMHO this is a business matter, and its being taken care of in a swift manner. As it should be.
On the analogy idea, none of them make sense because they don't reflect the composition of the league, the most important factor in these events. Yes nothing would be done because it wouldn't be relevant to the players.
Quote: onenickelmiracleClassic interview with Anderson Cooper. Although he didn't prove much and with some comments didn't help himself
That might be the understatement of the century.
Quote:"Big, Magic Johnson, what has he done?" Sterling asked Cooper. "He's got AIDS."
Cooper clarified that Johnson was diagnosed with HIV, not AIDS. Sterling went on, "What kind of a guy has sex with every girl, then he catches HIV? Is that someone we want to respect and tell our kids about? I think he should be ashamed of himself. I think he should go into the background. What does he do for the black people?"
He is just a rich old racist man, pure and simple. He'll be dead soon and the world will be better for it.
Also, what 80 year old man, black or white, isnt some form of a racist
Quote: richbailey86Also, what 80 year old man, black or white, isnt some form of a racist
Does that make what he said okay??? Should he still be allowed to own an NBA team?
Quote: soxfanYou can have freedom or "diversity" you can't have both, hey hey!
Another home run by the shrewd cat
Quote: ams288Does that make what he said okay??? Should he still be allowed to own an NBA team?
I don't think what he said is ok by any means but I don't think that should prevent him from owning a company. If people don't like him then they can decided to not go or to not play. Obviously the amount of money the players are getting outweigh the idea of working for a racist person or they wouldn't be playing still.
Quote: ams288Does that make what he said okay??? Should he still be allowed to own an NBA team?
So now we are going to kick out anyone who says racist comments right?
Quote: Lemieux66So now we are going to kick out anyone who says racist comments right?
Yes. If you get caught on tape making comments that are as racist as his, you are getting kicked out.
Quote: ams288Yes. If you get caught on tape making comments that are as racist as his, you are getting kicked out.
So it is only wrong if you get caught. A racist is allowed to be racist as long as they don't say it publicly. Makes sense to me.
Quote: GWAESo it is only wrong if you get caught.
Uh, that's how the world works. Don't know what to tell you....
Quote: onenickelmiracleClassic interview with Anderson Cooper. Although he didn't prove much and with some comments didn't help himself, I have to admit I felt quite sorry for him at times. Being 80, it's hard to not feel sorry anyways and not think he isn't all there to communicate the way he means.
This was pretty much my thoughts as well. There is some question about the man's mental state. Anderson Cooper said, he didn't see any issue and would not have continued if he thought there were any. I am wondering if Anderson was really being objective, because I saw nothing but a confused old man floundering around, not making much sense.
I really am growing more appalled with this story each day. There is a mob mentality involved and the NBA appears to have a constitution and control that rivals most dictatorship countries, allowed to just take property away from someone any time they want. That is not an American concept.
As, I said, in another threat (or maybe earlier in this one, I didn't check), it pains me to defend this jackass. But, he has committed no crime. Being racist and stupid is not a crime. The idea that he should be forced to sell his personal property just seems wrong. The way this should play out in my mind, is the same as if he owned a restaurant, or other business. Those offended can decide to boycott his business.
Racism is wrong whether you get caught or not. You just need to get caught to be punished.
And that is basically my whole real issue with this case. If this man had held a press conference or taken to a podium or even an interview in his official capacity of representing the Clippers and/or NBA, I could see more of an issue. But a private conversation, in the privacy of his own home.....that doesn't work the same way for me. The man had a certain expectation of privacy which has been violated. And again, the important issue here is that no crime was committed. It is not illegal to be ignorant and stupid, ESPECIALLY in the privacy of your own home.