Donald "Piece of Crap" Sterling at it again

[Superbone]

Did you guys read the article? Apparently, she's not going to fight it and she'll handle selling the team amicably.

Here's another article from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markheisler ... o-be-sold/

Yeah, I know. We'll see it when we believe it.

[Phoenix219]

Do we actually have people here rooting for this guy?

The principals at stake here are much bigger then Sterling as a person, so yes, absoultely.

[TOO]

What principals?

[Mori Chu]

I don't get why people think owning an NBA team is the same as owning an iPad.

[SwingMan]

What principals?

The principles of the First Amendment - though Sterling is a grade A shitball, he still has a right to say whatever he wants (and, I love how everyone seems to keep ignoring the fact that he was recorded illegally). If Silver is permitted to go unabated with yanking his franchise unilaterally, that sets precedent for pure facism that threatens livelihoods, among other things, simply for saying what others may deem wrong.

For instance: If this precedent stands and, say, the NBA gets a gay commissioner, said commissioner can, by this precedent, yank ownership away from any owner HE (or she, as the case may be) so deems to be anti-gay. The precedent is what makes the "slippery slope".

[SwingMan]

I don't get why people think owning an NBA team is the same as owning an iPad.

I don't get what code Sterling violated - also, stop ignoring the fact that he was recorded illegally (not directed solely at you, Mori).

[TOO]

Here's my thing, Sterling has a responsibility to the NBA to act in a professional manner at all times. Owning an NBA team is not a right, it's a priveledge. Yes he was recorded illegally, but that doesn't make what he said ok. You dont get a free pass in my book. You cannot allow that sort of ignorance in any job, much less one where 85% of the employees are black. He's got nobody to blame but himself.

Silver isnt doing this just because he wants to, the players want it, the owners want it, the Clippers themselves want it. Silver is doing whats best for business IMO. If Sterling gets to keep that team, I think it will die, nobody wants to play for that guy now. Players will file grievances to get out, Doc will leave and they'll go back to being the 90's Clippers that nobody wanted to be a part of.

[SwingMan]

Here's my thing, Sterling has a responsibility to the NBA to act in a professional manner at all times. Owning an NBA team is not a right, it's a priveledge. Yes he was recorded illegally, but that doesn't make what he said ok. You dont get a free pass in my book. You cannot allow that sort of ignorance in any job, much less one where 85% of the employees are black. He's got nobody to blame but himself.

Silver isnt doing this just because he wants to, the players want it, the owners want it, the Clippers themselves want it. Silver is doing whats best for business IMO. If Sterling gets to keep that team, I think it will die, nobody wants to play for that guy now. Players will file grievances to get out, Doc will leave and they'll go back to being the 90's Clippers that nobody wanted to be a part of.

Thing is, he wasn't saying all that stuff as he held a press conference - he said it in the privacy of his own home. Only way it got out was an extortion attempt by the $2 piece of snatch he was fooling with. What's more, his attitudes have been known for decades - why wasn't something said in years past, especially when he was going through his real estate bullshit just a few years back? And, like I said earlier in this thread, knowing the above, if their convictions were all that, then why did Rivers and FA's flock to coach and play there? The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Sure, I think Sterling deserves to be boycotted, but he's deserved it for years - don't pile on the bandwagon just now because it's "trending", you know (not just you - general statement). And don't make it happen by fascism wrapped in despotism.

[Superbone]

What principals?

The principles of the First Amendment - though Sterling is a grade A shitball, he still has a right to say whatever he wants (and, I love how everyone seems to keep ignoring the fact that he was recorded illegally). If Silver is permitted to go unabated with yanking his franchise unilaterally, that sets precedent for pure facism that threatens livelihoods, among other things, simply for saying what others may deem wrong.

For instance: If this precedent stands and, say, the NBA gets a gay commissioner, said commissioner can, by this precedent, yank ownership away from any owner HE (or she, as the case may be) so deems to be anti-gay. The precedent is what makes the "slippery slope".

The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-sterlings ... am-1588858

The question of whether Sterling’s First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution have been violated has also been floated, but Mitten stressed that the amendment provides a restraint on the government from infringing on an individual’s right to free speech, and there is no such protection from a private entity like the NBA.

[TOO]

Its a business, you cant be an asshole and get caught, plain and simple. He's not bigger than the league, the leagues best interests will always come before 1 person, whether it be and owner or player. Period.

[SwingMan]

What principals?

The principles of the First Amendment - though Sterling is a grade A shitball, he still has a right to say whatever he wants (and, I love how everyone seems to keep ignoring the fact that he was recorded illegally). If Silver is permitted to go unabated with yanking his franchise unilaterally, that sets precedent for pure facism that threatens livelihoods, among other things, simply for saying what others may deem wrong.

For instance: If this precedent stands and, say, the NBA gets a gay commissioner, said commissioner can, by this precedent, yank ownership away from any owner HE (or she, as the case may be) so deems to be anti-gay. The precedent is what makes the "slippery slope".

The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-sterlings ... am-1588858

The question of whether Sterling’s First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution have been violated has also been floated, but Mitten stressed that the amendment provides a restraint on the government from infringing on an individual’s right to free speech, and there is no such protection from a private entity like the NBA.

Again - what code did he break? Let's see exactly what NBA rules he himself broke - I've not seen one single article outlining exactly what NBA code/rule/bylaw/whathaveyou that he broke. If there's an article out there that I may have missed which company rule(s) he broke, I'd love to see it - anyone have any links? Otherwise, Silver himself has been judge & jury with no legal reason - i.e., no due process.

How does a forced muzzle have nothing to do with the First Amendment?

[SwingMan]

And why is the $2 piece of snatch all but flying free for illegally recording the conversation?

[Phoenix219]

It would be differnet if Sterling was saying this stuff in public, on microphones, to the press; That would be hurting the league and maybe they would have a case. If the other stuff he has been documented doing wasn't enough to matter, then this should be a moot point, as well. A literally overnight flip from receiving a bogus (but defendable) NAACP award to losing his long term, multi million dollar franchise, over an illegally recorded tape of personal views that were expressed privately on his own property.... It honestly shocks and offends me that in this FREE country, NO ONE is upset by the principals at stake here, or why this is wrong.... it just wreaks of the thought police.

By the way, Mark Cuban is the fucking man....

[TOO]

Once it became public no matter how it did, the NBA has to do something about it. I'm all for free speech, guns, religion etc.. So long as it doesnt affect you or someone elses ability in the the workplace or public. This most definitely affects the work place, its not something that Silver can correct with sensitivity training.

[SwingMan]

Once it became public no matter how it did, the NBA has to do something about it. I'm all for free speech, guns, religion etc.. So long as it doesnt affect you or someone elses ability in the the workplace or public. This most definitely affects the work place, its not something that Silver can correct with sensitivity training.

Alright - here's a PDF with some of the dope:

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/media ... Charge.pdf

It's all one-sided - says nothing regarding an acknowledgement that the recording was/is illegal.

One of the so-called "key facts" the NBA claims is :

In the course of the investigation into Mr. Sterling’s conduct, it was discovered that
relevant evidence was destroyed, false and misleading evidence was provided to the
NBA’s investigator, and LAC issued a false and misleading press statement
regarding this matter.

I've seen no report of any of that - anywhere. What was supposed to have been destroyed and what "false and misleading press statement" was issued? Though he didn't have to, at least Sterling owned up right from jump street that it was him on the recording.

One part in the "Basis for Termination" in particular that's pure bullshit is :

a violation of the contractual duty of loyalty to support the league
in the attainment of its proper purposes, which include among
other things the league’s commitment to diversity and inclusion

He's done plenty with his own, private (real estate) holdings, but when has he done that in regards to his operation of the Clippers? Has he banned any black people from the team, be it players, staff or support or has he banned any black people from attending games/team functions etc. based on race? Has he ever made any kind of indicative public statement pertaining to the above?

And how has this "breached the duty of loyalty through the acts described above,
which were injurious, harmful, and disruptive to the NBA." ? How has it harmed the NBA? Public opinion has already roasted Sterling, it hasn't harmed the league one damn bit - not now, not when the league all but condoned Sterling's attitude for decades prior.

It was an illegal recording of a private conversation, folks - that's the key.

[Superbone]

It was an illegal recording of a private conversation, folks - that's the key.

It doesn't matter how it was obtained.

[SwingMan]

It was an illegal recording of a private conversation, folks - that's the key.

It doesn't matter how it was obtained.

So - you're entirely ok with all of the NSA stuff that's been going down, I take it?

[Mori Chu]

He's done plenty with his own, private (real estate) holdings, but when has he done that in regards to his operation of the Clippers? Has he banned any black people from the team, be it players, staff or support or has he banned any black people from attending games/team functions etc. based on race? Has he ever made any kind of indicative public statement pertaining to the above?

It isn't really possible to compartmentalize racism. If you don't like black people in your housing business and have been busted for doing so, and if you have had to settle multiple lawsuits from black people who felt that you discriminated against them, and then you're recorded on tape saying you don't want black people in the arena at your games, then yeah, the racism kind of extends to your team ownership. Even if the recording about the arena is tainted by being illegally recorded, even if that piece of evidence is dismissed, there is a clear pattern of racist behavior that is inappropriate for an NBA owner.

And how has this "breached the duty of loyalty through the acts described above,
which were injurious, harmful, and disruptive to the NBA." ? How has it harmed the NBA? Public opinion has already roasted Sterling, it hasn't harmed the league one damn bit - not now, not when the league all but condoned Sterling's attitude for decades prior.

How has it harmed the NBA? Well, it is very simple. Suppose the league does nothing to get rid of a clearly racist owner, where the public and media are now well aware that he is a racist owner. The damage to the league from this is obvious. Advertisers will pull out. Some fans will stop attending. Sponsors will withdraw. People will choose not to watch on TV. It's a PR disaster, and if you think it would be localized to Sterling and the Clippers, that is silly. It would have huge collateral damage on the league.

It was an illegal recording of a private conversation, folks - that's the key.

The take doesn't rest on the recording. I rest it on the past behavior, plus Sterling's interview with Silver in person after the recording where he confirmed that those were his words and that he does feel that way, plus Sterling's ludicrous interview with Anderson Cooper where he trashed Magic Johnson and further insulted black people. It's a strong and damning case against the man.

Forget illegally obtained recordings; that's just one small piece of a horrible puzzle that leads to the conclusion that you can't keep this guy as a supported owner of this league. Yes, the recording was a spark that led to other events that lead to the need to get this guy out. But when you say "it's an ILLEGALLY obtained recording," you act as though this recording is the sole piece of evidence here, the sole exhibit in the case against Sterling. It is not.

I get the argument of, "He's been a scumbag for years; why not get rid of him before now? Everybody looked the other way." I agree. People should have raised more fuss before now. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't oust him now, now that it's even MORE clear (if that's possible) that this guy is a scumbag. Just because we should have gotten rid of him sooner doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of him now.

And why is the $2 piece of snatch all but flying free for illegally recording the conversation?

I don't think anybody is praising her. If somebody (e.g. Sterling) wants to press charges for recording him and releasing the recording, so be it. She might be found guilty in civil court if Sterling were to sue, and I don't condone or support her behavior. Plus, in later interviews, she has shown herself to be a bit looney tunes. But somebody has to bring the lawsuit to court against her; from my understanding she didn't commit a criminal offense, just a civil one. If Sterling doesn't bring a lawsuit, she probably doesn't face punishment.

I also think you know that argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

[SwingMan]

It isn't really possible to compartmentalize racism. If you don't like black people in your housing business and have been busted for doing so, and if you have had to settle multiple lawsuits from black people who felt that you discriminated against them, and then you're recorded on tape saying you don't want black people in the arena at your games, then yeah, the racism kind of extends to your team ownership. Even if the recording about the arena is tainted by being illegally recorded, even if that piece of evidence is dismissed, there is a clear pattern of racist behavior that is inappropriate for an NBA owner.

Oh, this is cute - this from someone who, just a few days prior, tried to excuse Jay-Z by attempting to apply different degrees to racism.

Point is, the real estate stuff etc. has nothing to do with the NBA, per their own brief - not one damn thing.

How has it harmed the NBA? Well, it is very simple. Suppose the league does nothing to get rid of a clearly racist owner, where the public and media are now well aware that he is a racist owner. The damage to the league from this is obvious. Advertisers will pull out. Some fans will stop attending. Sponsors will withdraw. People will choose not to watch on TV. It's a PR disaster, and if you think it would be localized to Sterling and the Clippers, that is silly. It would have huge collateral damage on the league.

People knew of his racism long before this and it didn't do a damn thing to the league as a whole. Again, with the hypocrisy (not you) - people knew about it, yet still latched on to Sterling for jobs.

The take doesn't rest on the recording. I rest it on the past behavior, plus Sterling's interview with Silver in person after the recording where he confirmed that those were his words and that he does feel that way, plus Sterling's ludicrous interview with Anderson Cooper where he trashed Magic Johnson and further insulted black people. It's a strong and damning case against the man.

Forget illegally obtained recordings; that's just one small piece of a horrible puzzle that leads to the conclusion that you can't keep this guy as a supported owner of this league. Yes, the recording was a spark that led to other events that lead to the need to get this guy out. But when you say "it's an ILLEGALLY obtained recording," you act as though this recording is the sole piece of evidence here, the sole exhibit in the case against Sterling. It is not.

I get the argument of, "He's been a scumbag for years; why not get rid of him before now? Everybody looked the other way." I agree. People should have raised more fuss before now. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't oust him now, now that it's even MORE clear (if that's possible) that this guy is a scumbag. Just because we should have gotten rid of him sooner doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of him now.

Then, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to 'Bone above: So - you're entirely ok with all of the NSA stuff that's been going down, I take it? I bet there's plenty of dirt one could get on you when recorded (and coerced) unknowingly and illegally that could be used against you in one way or another. Hell, all of us, likely.

I also think you know that argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

What the hell are you talking about? Some double talk to try to shut me down or some such? Saying I repeat myself? Yeah, maybe at times I do - it happens when I come across folks who try to stonewall logic and common sense, especially when they ignore key facts.

Look - I'm all for Sterling to be gone, but not by underhanded means that sets a dangerous precedent.

[Mori Chu]

Oh, this is cute - this from someone who, just a few days prior, tried to excuse Jay-Z by attempting to apply different degrees to racism.

I said it isn't possible to "compartmentalize" racism. That is, if you demonstrate clearly racist behavior in one area, it's pretty hard to argue that you are unracist in the rest of your life. That doesn't have anything to do with the Jay-Z thing you brought up. I already said my peace about the Jay-Z thing; he held a private party for his friends, who are black. So what? There's no law saying that somebody has to invite a diverse group of mixed races to come to a private party. Some white guys who were not invited to the private party tried to crash it and were turned away. Of course they were; they were not invited. What is the issue here? It's just a desperate search to try to find an example of a black guy being racist, and it's ridiculous.

People knew of his racism long before this and it didn't do a damn thing to the league as a whole. Again, with the hypocrisy (not you) - people knew about it, yet still latched on to Sterling for jobs.

That's fine; perhaps they should not have supported the team or signed to play there. But this latest spat in 2014 really brings it out to the forefront so that everybody can see clearly what Sterling is, even if they didn't follow the past indiscretions. I already said the following in my last message; I'll quote myself. My quote stands. Do you have a response to the following quote, or do you choose to ignore it?

I get the argument of, "He's been a scumbag for years; why not get rid of him before now? Everybody looked the other way." I agree. People should have raised more fuss before now. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't oust him now, now that it's even MORE clear (if that's possible) that this guy is a scumbag. Just because we should have gotten rid of him sooner doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of him now.

Next topic:

Then, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to 'Bone above: So - you're entirely ok with all of the NSA stuff that's been going down, I take it? I bet there's plenty of dirt one could get on you when recorded (and coerced) unknowingly and illegally that could be used against you in one way or another. Hell, all of us, likely.

No, of course I don't support the NSA. I think I made it clear several times in my last message that I don't support what V. Stiviano did. I also said that the case against Sterling isn't really about that recording, other than the fact that the recording served as a catalyst for other events. It's a small part of a large picture. I never condone the act of violating the privacy of others, and the NSA can rot in hell. No, that does not make me a hypocrite. I just said that I don't support what V. Stiviano did, and my feeling that Sterling needs to go is NOT based on that recording; it's based on Sterling's actions before, during, and after that recording that show a clear pattern of behavior that harms the Clippers and the NBA.

This point seems to be getting lost repeatedly, so I am going to paste it two more times. I really want everyone to read it.

I don't support what V. Stiviano did, and my feeling that Sterling needs to go is NOT based on that recording; it's based on Sterling's actions before, during, and after that recording that show a clear pattern of behavior that harms the Clippers and the NBA.

I don't support what V. Stiviano did, and my feeling that Sterling needs to go is NOT based on that recording; it's based on Sterling's actions before, during, and after that recording that show a clear pattern of behavior that harms the Clippers and the NBA.

Seriously, watch the guy's Anderson Cooper interview. He's a walking disaster. He greatly harms the NBA every day he's still associated with the league. And his agreement as an owner is that he can get voted out if he harms the league. So he needs to go.

Mori Chu wrote:
I also think you know that argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

What the hell are you talking about? Some double talk to try to shut me down or some such? Saying I repeat myself?

Sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing about it. Argumentum ad hominem means "argument to the person," in other words, discrediting someone's argument by attacking them on a personal level. I was saying that your "$2 piece of snatch" comment was an unnecessary personal attack on V. Stiviano. She's slimy for recording him, but slut-shaming her and calling her a prostitute is not necessary. Who knows what she did/didn't do for Sterling; it doesn't really matter.