“The Racist” gave $50,000 to the Los Angeles Black Business Association “The Racist” gave $50,000 to the United Negro College Fund “The Racist” started a charity called the Sterling Foundation which has given massive grants to the NAACP – including 80,000 tickets “The Racist” was given the NAACP’s “President’s Award” in 2008 “The Racist” was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the NAACP in 2009 “The Racist” was scheduled to be given another NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award next month for 2014
Sounds like the old "I have a black friend so I can't be racist" defense.
I agree with many of others here though, I don't tlike that this was a leaked and supposedly private conversation.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-30-2014).]
Originally posted by rogergarrison: I havent paid much attention, mainly because sports like basketball are of no interest to me anyway. To each his own though. I didnt hear him say anything negative about blacks in general...all I heard is he was pizzed about his 'girl friend' promoting herself hanging out with blacks by taking pics with some black stars, etc. I could say the same thing to my gf if I wanted, if she was hanging out with muslims I didnt like. Whose business is it but mine and hers ? I hate thieves too and not afraid to say it. Should I be arrested or fined for saying it?
Was anyone arrested? No. Was Donald Sterling fined? Yes, but not by the government. By the NBA. That's part of the contract that he entered into when he became an NBA franchise owner, to abide by the decisions of the NBA's central authority. Which in this case decided that he should pay a fine.
Your last sentence there doesn't jive with the facts of this case. It's not a logical statement in this context.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-30-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: That's part of the contract that he entered into when he became an NBA franchise owner, to abide by the decisions of the NBA's central authority. Which in this case decided that he should pay a fine.
I'm pretty sure the contract doesn't say he has to do whatever the NBA says. Could the NBA fine him for wearing black socks with sandals? Was there a morals clause in his contract? I would think so. Most public figure contracts have some kind of morals clause but there would have to be something in the contract he violated. I doubt the NBA can just say "you offended me, give me money."
Your last sentence there doesn't jive with the facts of this case. It's not a logical statement in this context.
OK....I should be fined by the National Muslim Society then ?
I didnt know anyone could be fined for talking to their gf about anything. I didnt even know an association could make rules about what you can say to a gf...well except a homeowners association...
Heres an idea...he already has more money than he could need or spend. He still owns the team now and Im sure he owns the name. Id fire all the players and staff (for breach of contract if nothing else). Bulldoze their arena (assuming they have their own), and sell the land to some developer. If someone want to hire them and make up a new team, with a different name, so be it.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 04-30-2014).]
OK....I should be fined by the National Muslim Society then ?
I didnt know anyone could be fined for talking to their gf about anything. I didnt even know an association could make rules about what you can say to a gf...well except a homeowners association...
Heres an idea...he already has more money than he could need or spend. He still owns the team now and Im sure he owns the name. Id fire all the players and staff (for breach of contract if nothing else). Bulldoze their arena (assuming they have their own), and sell the land to some developer. If someone want to hire them and make up a new team, with a different name, so be it.
If Mr. Roger Garrison entered into a legally binding contract with the NMS (National Muslim Society, Inc.) that designates him as the owner of an NMS franchise (The Belize Bombers? The Mansfield Mo's of Mansfield, Ohio?), and the contract stipulates that Mr. Garrison agreed to honor all decisions affecting his franchise as duly determined by the NMS central office, according to the legally registered document of incorporation for the NMS that defines its management procedures and bylaws, then Mr. Garrison either complies with all decisions of the NMS, including the levy of monetary fines against franchise owners (including himself) or becomes subject to civil action (lawsuit) by the NMS as plaintiff in any civil court of the state where the NMS is registered as a legal corporation.
QED.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-30-2014).]
I'm pretty sure the contract doesn't say he has to do whatever the NBA says. Could the NBA fine him for wearing black socks with sandals? Was there a morals clause in his contract? I would think so. Most public figure contracts have some kind of morals clause but there would have to be something in the contract he violated. I doubt the NBA can just say "you offended me, give me money."
Exactly, Sterling signed a contract and he violated that same contract. It is not about freedom of speech or government involvement.... it is between the NBA and Sterling and their agreement, nothing more.
Exactly, Sterling signed a contract and he violated that same contract. It is not about freedom of speech or government involvement.... it is between the NBA and Sterling and their agreement, nothing more.
You are absolutely correct about the contract and the NBA's collective rights to execute a clause in that agreement and be rid of him. I do however think there may be something more.
They said on the news that if hes forced to sell out, he could fight it and keep it in the courts for many years to come. He might die before they could force him out.
They said on the news that if hes forced to sell out, he could fight it and keep it in the courts for many years to come. He might die before they could force him out.
Then let him.. it is his money to spend. I am sure the world needs more lawyers with disposable income
If Mr. Roger Garrison entered into a legally binding contract with the NMS (National Muslim Society, Inc.) that designates him as the owner of an NMS franchise (The Belize Bombers? The Mansfield Mo's of Mansfield, Ohio?), and the contract stipulates that Mr. Garrison agreed to honor all decisions affecting his franchise as duly determined by the NMS central office, according to the legally registered document of incorporation for the NMS that defines its management procedures and bylaws, then Mr. Garrison either complies with all decisions of the NMS, including the levy of monetary fines against franchise owners (including himself) or becomes subject to civil action (lawsuit) by the NMS as plaintiff in any civil court of the state where the NMS is registered as a legal corporation.
QED.
Again, this was supposedly a private conversation.
Originally posted by Uaana: Again, this was supposedly a private conversation.
That's what Mr. Sterling thought. He may even have some legal recourse against certain parties, if laws were violated by whoever recorded and then publicized his remarks. But this has absolutely no bearing on what the NBA has already done (the lifetime suspension), and what they are trying to do next (remove him from ownership of an NBA franchise).
Once the cat is out of the bag, it cannot just be put back in the bag and dismissed as if it never happened.
Unless it's a Schrödinger's cat...
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-02-2014).]
Then let him.. it is his money to spend. I am sure the world needs more lawyers with disposable income
So the NBA takes him to court for the next 10 years fighting to force him to sell...and he already is 2 years past his doctors death prediction...he has prostate cancer. Ya, that makes a lot of sense.
So the NBA takes him to court for the next 10 years fighting to force him to sell...and he already is 2 years past his doctors death prediction...he has prostate cancer. Ya, that makes a lot of sense.
Who cares... it is between the NBA and Sterling. People die everyday. It isn't like he will be homeless if he has to sell... in fact he will have even more money to spend on lawyers.
I don't know about that but seams like it is ripe for a conspiracy to get the team out of his hands, and of course that would mean into somebody elses. None of his behavior no matter how despicable it may be is anything new.
White person uses the N word, they get their life ruined. Black person uses the N word, they make money off it. Now I know you don't need me to provide examples for you!
Who cares... it is between the NBA and Sterling. People die everyday. It isn't like he will be homeless if he has to sell... in fact he will have even more money to spend on lawyers.
I didnt know you could force dead people into doing anything. Ill predict he wont sell and put up a fight they have to deal with. Again, id just fire everyone and destroy everything I owned to do with the team and let them fend for themselves.
So, everyone slamming Sterling for racist remarks, how about some of that hate and vitriol for racism on the other side of the aisle? Or is this not considered racism?
Again, id just fire everyone and destroy everything I owned to do with the team and let them fend for themselves.
So, did you stop the kickball game and take the ball home, when losing? The guy signed an agreement.... If he wanted to do what you would, he wouldn't have signed the agreement.
Originally posted by Lambo nut: White person uses the N word, they get their life ruined. Black person uses the N word, they make money off it. Now I know you don't need me to provide examples for you!
This isn't about the N-word. Mr. Sterling didn't use the N-word in the conversation with Ms. "V" that sparked this episode. He told her that he didn't want her to continue associating in any personal and unofficial way (her office being some kind of executive assistant for the Clippers) with blacks that could be discerned by the general public, either in person or on the Internet.
What's the point of all of these "yeah, but it's a double standard" kind of reactions? It's a chorus that plays loudly here (on O/T) every day, whenever something comes up that touches on race or (perceived) racism. This chorus is so visibly out of proportion to the observable facts that it only undermines the credibility of the many here who are constantly singing this tune.
"The lady doth protest too much..."
quote
Originally posted by Rallaster: 3 days and no comments? Black former NBA star and current team exec claims the need for an ALL black league and crickets?
From the link:
"[Larry] Johnson was hired by the Knicks two years ago and serves many roles as a basketball and business operations representative. It’s unclear what his role will be under new team president Phil Jackson."
Not much comparison to Donald Sterling, who is the sole owner of the Clippers and has been the sole owner for more than 20 years.
If Larry Johnson keeps making those kind of comments, in the wake of this Donald Sterling episode, he will likely find himself without any role in the NBA.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-02-2014).]
"[Larry] Johnson was hired by the Knicks two years ago and serves many roles as a basketball and business operations representative. It’s unclear what his role will be under new team president Phil Jackson."
Not much comparison to Donald Sterling, who is the sole owner of the Clippers and has been the sole owner for more than 20 years.
If Larry Johnson keeps making those kind of comments, in the wake of this Donald Sterling episode, he will likely find himself without any role in the NBA.
Larry Johnson has been making statements like that since before he became an All-Star in the mid-late 90's.
quote
Johnson, who played 10 seasons in the NBA, including the last five with the Knicks, is no stranger to commenting on issues of race. During the 1999 NBA Finals between the Knicks and San Antonio Spurs, Johnson caused a stir by saying: “We’ve got a lot of rebellious slaves on this (Knicks) team.”
When asked if he was referring to his teammates as slaves, Johnson seemed surprised people were confused.
“I’ve got to explain that to you? We don’t go with the mainstream,” Johnson said at the time.
It's about a white person saying something bad about blacks. If it were the other way around, or just a black person saying something bad about blacks, it would be no problem and probably had never made the news.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
What's the point of all of these "yeah, but it's a double standard" kind of reactions?
Originally posted by Lambo nut: It's about a white person saying something bad about blacks. If it were the other way around, or just a black person saying something bad about blacks, it would be no problem and probably had never made the news.
Not just any white person. A very prominent white man who has been the sole owner of an NBA franchise for more than 20 years.
It's hard to say about "if it were the other way around", unless someone can think of a black person who has been that prominent for that many years in a position that depends on having white employees and patrons, and then comes out and says something completely over the top like "I don't like to associate with whites, especially in public."
I never played any stupid stick and ball games. But yes if I did, Id take my ball home when I wanted to and screw everyone who didnt like it. Sue me.
not mine, just quoting.....
" There can be no debate that the words of Mr. Sterling were reprehensible and disgusting. But how and why did these words come to light now, when his points of view were apparently well-known for many years? It seems his “girlfriend,” Ms. Stiviano, decided to tape a private conversation between the two. Apparently, Ms. Stiviano had recently been sued by the estranged wife of Mr. Sterling, so there is some potential nefarious motive involved. Furthermore, the taping of a conversation without consent of the other party is illegal under California statute. There is some question as to whether he knew he was being recorded. Let’s assume for the moment he didn’t. The national outrage against Mr. Sterling has come from an act that could be illegal and inadmissible in a court of law. Nevertheless, the court of public opinion has tried and convicted Mr. Sterling of being a jerk. But have we come to a point in America where being a jerk is grounds for confiscation of a private property? It was Englishman John Locke who first proposed that individual rights as granted under natural law were life, liberty, and property. It was Thomas Jefferson who in the American Declaration of Independence used that paradigm to propose our unalienable rights from our Creator being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sterling’s comments were repulsive, but they were stated in the privacy of his own home — at least he thought it was private. So where do we go from here? Have we come to the point that private conversations can be taped and released in the public domain in order to ruin the livelihood –pursuit of happiness — of private citizens? Ms. Stiviano, or whomever, knew exactly what they wanted the end result to be as they released this tape to TMZ. Is this the “new normal?” Is this a violation of our privacy rights? Ok, so what types of conversations occur in the privacy of the NBA locker rooms, or the homes of the players? Yes, this is indeed a slippery slope as Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban asserted. Fox News host and commentator Greg Gutfeld applauded this moment because of the consensus outrage being displayed. But I believe this outrage misplaced, or more accurately, mis-prioritized. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Sterling’s behavior was “dangerous to the NBA.” Where is the cultural, public outrage over a behind closed door comment such as referring to the State of Israel as an “apartheid state?” Probably most of America doesn’t know who said it or even what “aparteid” means. Or how about the outrage that should have come when our own president leaned over to then-Russian President Medvedev sayng, “Tell Putin that after my reelection I will have more flexibility” and of course Medvedev said, “I will tell Vladimir.” And now we know what that “flexibility” has allowed. Aren’t those “private” chats reflective of behavior that is dangerous for the United States? Or how about the lies and deceit of President Obama on healthcare and of course Benghazi, which we now know a video had nothing to do with. Has our culture devolved to the point that the private statements of an NBA owner draws more outrage than the lies and deceit of the President of the United States? Donald Sterling’s behavior is despicable, but so is that of President Barack Hussein Obama — and whose abhorrent behavior has more impact on our country? The difference is that the media lead us along like sheep to the slaughter, turning us into reactionary, shallow thinking, low information voters along the way. We know more about Sterling than Benghazi — or the IRS scandal. Sterling is a jerk, an unlikeable fella, but is he guilty of a crime that demands his property be confiscated? Uh, no. We’re told however that Obama is a likable fella –regardless of the incessant lies, deceit and abject failures. What is happening to American culture and values? I don’t like jerks, but I really don’t like jerks who are liars, do you? "
The Republican-led hearings about the IRS "scandal" are a giant waste of time and money. Political gamesmanship and nothing more. They need to simplify and streamline the tax codes and get rid of these borderline judgement calls about whether or not this group or that group qualifies for a tax exemption; judgement calls that are impractical for the IRS to administrate.
Of course, I don't know that that the Democrats are any more interested in overhauling the tax codes than the Republicans.
But the Darrell Issa committee's hearings are just a farce and a boondoggle at the public's expense.
Ditto for the Benghazi investigation. The Republicans aren't trying to improve security at any U.S. embassies or consulates with their smoking gun email talking points nonsense.
The Republican-led hearings about the IRS "scandal" are a giant waste of time and money. Political gamesmanship and nothing more. They need to simplify and streamline the tax codes and get rid of these borderline judgement calls about whether or not this group or that group qualifies for a tax exemption; judgement calls that are impractical for the IRS to administrate.
Of course, I don't know that that the Democrats are any more interested in overhauling the tax codes than the Republicans.
But the Darrell Issa committee's hearings are just a farce and a boondoggle at the public's expense.
Dittofor the Benghazi investigation. The Republicans aren't trying to improve security at any U.S. embassies or consulates with their smoking gun email talking points nonsense.
Well too bad, it's going to happen despite your vast knowledge on what "really" happened. Have you offered to testify so we can put a stop to all the nonsense? Can't believe people downplay this like it is no big deal. "if" and I do mean IF 50% of the accusations are true this is high crimes and misdemeanors hands down. Edit: dam don't know how e got here! I thought this was a completely different thread!
[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 05-03-2014).]
Originally posted by Red88FF: Well too bad, it's going to happen despite your vast knowledge on what "really" happened. Have you offered to testify so we can put a stop to all the nonsense?
Can't believe people downplay this like it is no big deal. "if" and I do mean IF 50% of the accusations are true this is high crimes and misdemeanors hands down.
Edit: dam don't know how e got here! I thought this was a completely different thread!
We are living in a relatively new era: the era of the contrived or invented scandal. Whatever the current administration says or does, whether it is straightforward incompetence, or a tradeoff that nets certain advantages that are balanced and considered to outweigh the negatives, or just a different idea of what needs to be said (e.g., Obama statements about the Trayvon Martin case) or how things should work, it's a "scandal"--or a conspiracy--scandal's kissing cousin--according to the opposing factions in Congress.
If the same rules and customs were in effect in 1983, when a truck bomb at a barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Marines during the Reagan administration, the Democrats in Congress would have held hearings and investigated it with such vigor that Congress would have not had time for anything else during the remainder of Reagan's tenure.
Democrats would probably still be conducting Congressional hearings and releasing endless and politically slanted reports and press statements about the Marine barracks bombing to this very day. Or calling for still more hearings.
That wasn't the first time in modern history that a car or truck had been used as an explosive device.
This came to me without any external prompting, but then I went looking and found the same conclusions in the form of a media column:
Originally posted by rinselberg: If the same rules and customs were in effect in 1983, when a truck bomb at a barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Marines during the Reagan administration, the Democrats in Congress would have held hearings and investigated it with such vigor that Congress would have not had time for anything else during the remainder of Reagan's tenure.
The commander of the barracks, Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, says in congressional hearings investigating the attacks that the compound was hard to defend because it was on flat ground and vehicles drove by it daily to access the airport.
Perhaps the difference is that the Reagan regime did not play politics over country, and released all pertinent information, you know "transparently". Perhaps there was "no there there".
We are living in a relatively new era: the era of the contrived or invented scandal.
(Please note, the contrived and invented scandals will end with the next Republican president, at which point all scandals will then become legitimate.)
I think that what most potential voters (2014 midterms, 2016 national election) get from Hillary's "What difference does it make?" is that whether the Benghazi debacle was linked in any way to the "Mohammed" Internet video or whether it was not, it was a major and tragic screwup on the overseas security front--either way. And of course, it happened when the "O' was the CEO and Hillary was the big kahuna at State.
If Hillary brought up that insipid Internet video, face to face, to the father of one of the Benghazi casualties (when the bodies were returned stateside), that was ridiculous, tone deaf and outright stupid on her part. Did she actually say what some media reports alleged that she said? I have no reason to think otherwise.
Obama, on the other hand, used the words "terrorists" and "terrorism" about Benghazi, not long after it happened, without linking it to the dumbass Internet video, or reiterating it as a "spontaneous demonstration" that somehow escalated into a lethal attack on the consulate with heavy military scale weapons.
In responding to some of the other topics that were brought in here, I contributed to the diversion of this discussion from the original topic. I am rerouting my Congressional hearings on Benghazi and the IRS-related train of thought to this thread:
