Deranged Rhino Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I'm still surprised people actually walk basketball. A lot less would have started watching had Silver not acted the way that he did. Which is the point, you can cry about it all you want and try to turn this into a free-speech issue, a property issue, or any other issue but it's not. He violated the terms of his own league's bylaws and they are justified in showing him the door -- if and only if they get the required 2/3rds vote of course. Which they most assuredly will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Can't Sterling just say he'll sell the Clip for $40 billion and watch no one bid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Can't Sterling just say he'll sell the Clip for $40 billion and watch no one bid? Probably not. The league will supervise the sale if they don't handle it outright themselves, but that depends on the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Did it get into the public? The dude should have been more careful with who he was talking to. This wasn't his diary he was confiding to That's an interesting standard. So anyone who has a politcally incorrect thought that is exposed to the public is justly deserving of persecution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Didn't read through it all and I'm an ole timer..... But anyone else here think the Clippers should have stayed in Buffalo where they were born??? Then, maybe none of this crap would have happened.... Now we're talking Cinga...................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 His private statements became public; making that distinction irrelevant for the NBA when their brand is at stake. You're changing the conversation from one of what is right to one of might. The NBA could have easily gotten around this in other ways, but regardless, that's not what I was asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Any of you regular posters black? Yep. I miss Juror #8. But, there are at least two more I remember. But, does it matter...? Edited April 30, 2014 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Any of you regular posters black? Many posters for the longest time thought I was. Does that count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 That's an interesting standard. So anyone who has a politcally incorrect thought that is exposed to the public is justly deserving of persecution? Anyone? No, but a person in charge of large numbers of people he holds in contempt, ya, maybe. Especially if a business interest is going to be harmed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Funny how this has gone from a civil rights issue to a sound business decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Not illegally according to the latest news, he requested his conversations be recorded by his girlfriend, only magnifying the stupidity of the man. Which is not at all a self-serving statement made by the girlfriend to avoid a felony charge for secretly recording the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Anyone? No, but a person in charge of large numbers of people he holds in contempt, ya, maybe. Especially if a business interest is going to be harmed So it's okay to hold whatever opinions you may, no matter how offensive, and no one should pay much mind, unless people that work for you might find your personal opinions offensive, in which case you should be proverbially tarred, feathered, and forced to sell your business? I can tell you know your argument is weak because you keep arguing in the alternative with the business interest piece which has only to do with the league's self-interest as opposed to a just and equitable outcome, which you seem to believe this is, yet fail to state a case for. Funny how this has gone from a civil rights issue to a sound business decision... It is telling. When your first attempt fails, move the goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 So it's okay to hold whatever opinions you may, no matter how offensive, and no one should pay much mind, unless people that work for you might find your personal opinions offensive, in which case you should be proverbially tarred, feathered, and forced to sell your business? I can tell you know your argument is weak because you keep arguing in the alternative with the business interest piece which has only to do with the league's self-interest as opposed to a just and equitable outcome, which you seem to believe this is, yet fail to state a case for. It is telling. When your first attempt fails, move the goal posts. You are not making any sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You are not making any sense You're just having a problem rationalizing your position. The statments this guy made are not substantially different in principle from opposition to interracial relationships or gay marriage. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has someone close to them who they care about who holds at least one of those views. But they don't demonize them, wish harm upon them, or hope to see them destroyed by the proverbial lynch mob on account of having an unenlightened opinion. But a rich white guy (who incidentally employs a lot of minorities who he has made multi-millionaires) is afraid people within "the culture" will frown upon his girlfriend hanging out with black guys, and your dick gets hard watching him get ripped apart. You're a hypocrite, and so are all the pundits, players, rappers, and owners piling on this guy. Maybe you should be concerned about how you and yours will be treated if one of your opinions becomes unpopular. Of course, since you're a nobody apparently that makes it okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You are not making any sense I'll break it down. It started with phrases thrown around like "discrimination, prejudice, civil rights." Suddenly, those arguments and phrases have no weight and have been debunked. Now it's about how the NBA is "right" to go after Donald to protect their business interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You're just having a problem rationalizing your position. The statments this guy made are not substantially different in principle from opposition to interracial relationships or gay marriage. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has someone close to them who they care about who holds at least one of those views. But they don't demonize them, wish harm upon them, or hope to see them destroyed by the proverbial lynch mob on account of having an unenlightened opinion. But a rich white guy (who incidentally employs a lot of minorities who he has made multi-millionaires) is afraid people within "the culture" will frown upon his girlfriend hanging out with black guys, and your dick gets hard watching him get ripped apart. You're a hypocrite, and so are all the pundits, players, rappers, and owners piling on this guy. Maybe you should be concerned about how you and yours will be treated if one of your opinions becomes unpopular. Of course, since you're a nobody apparently that makes it okay. You are the guy who said we should continue th war on drugs because it causes violence death and mayhem in Mexico as if that is a good thing and now you are defending a total racist. Ok! Ok I'll break it down. It started with phrases thrown around like "discrimination, prejudice, civil rights." Suddenly, those arguments and phrases have no weight and have been debunked. Now it's about how the NBA is "right" to go after Donald to protect their business interests. I don't remember those phrases being used. Can you post a link they were? Fire Chan? Sounds like a temp name to hide a regular poster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You are the guy who said we should continue th war on drugs because it causes violence death and mayhem in Mexico as if that is a good thing and now you are defending a total racist. Ok! Is it possible for you to be any dumber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) You're changing the conversation from one of what is right to one of might. The NBA could have easily gotten around this in other ways, but regardless, that's not what I was asking. That's not true at all. I'm not changing the conversation at all, I'm merely discussing the situation as it evolves. I've stated numerous times I don't condone anyone seizing his property because of his views -- but that was before the revelation that his conduct was indeed in violation of league bylaws he helped author. You're the one who is misconstruing this instance as punishment when it's not, at least not in the broad sense you're using it as. How could the NBA have gotten around this? Anything less than this would have sparked even more outrage. Silver was besieged by sponsors threatening to pull out, he's responsible for protecting the brand and all 30 owners -- even from one of their own. You live in a fantasy world if you think this was going to blow over had Silver taken the track that the tapes are irrelevant because of the method they were distributed to the public. Which is not at all a self-serving statement made by the girlfriend to avoid a felony charge for secretly recording the conversation. Sterling and his camp are on record as requesting these recordings. Funny how this has gone from a civil rights issue to a sound business decision... It's both. I'll break it down. It started with phrases thrown around like "discrimination, prejudice, civil rights." Suddenly, those arguments and phrases have no weight and have been debunked. Now it's about how the NBA is "right" to go after Donald to protect their business interests. Debunked? You're crazy, and incorrect. The arguments refined based on what the NBA did and how they couched their decision -- but that doesn't debunk the outcry over his comments, and numerous past lawsuits, are indeed because of the racism inherent in his comments. Edited April 30, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Quick question for the crowd. Doc Rivers has come out and publicly supported Silver in his decision. Can Sterling fire Rivers for not supporting him and his business? I mean, he would be trying to protect his brand and all. Edited April 30, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 That's not true at all. I'm not changing the conversation at all, I'm merely discussing the situation as it evolves. I've stated numerous times I don't condone anyone seizing his property because of his views -- but that was before the revelation that his conduct was indeed in violation of league bylaws he helped author. You're the one who is misconstruing this instance as punishment when it's not, at least not in the broad sense you're using it as. How could the NBA have gotten around this? Anything less than this would have sparked even more outrage. Silver was besieged by sponsors threatening to pull out, he's responsible for protecting the brand and all 30 owners -- even from one of their own. You live in a fantasy world if you think this was going to blow over had Silver taken the track that the tapes are irrelevant because of the method they were distributed to the public. There used to be a good dude around these parts with a similar handle (before the aliens got him) and because you remind me of him I'm not going to lose my patience with you, but I am getting a little tired of repeating myself, so I'll say this and call it a night, and we can resume this tomorrow if we feel so inclined. 1. I did not misconstrue it as punishment. I responded to others referring to it as such. (pretty sure I said this already, I think more than once) 2. The NBA could have gotten around it with a public statement that they don't share or condone and are opposed to his beliefs, but that his personal opinions are not actionable. 3. Is there a bylaw prohibiting any and all thoughts regarding black people (and presumably other minorities?) that diverge from the accepted politically correct views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts