Donald Sterling

So now I am reading that Magic Johnson is interested in buying the team..??

Talk about Karma..but look who is holding the key and for how much 500 - 600 Million..

Was it a set up?
Didnt see the twitter comment. Please post.

It's definitely a dangerous trend that has been set. Your personal thoughts can get you banned for life. Shaq is a sometimes announcer. Sterling is an owner. It would be explained that's the difference along with the NBA isn't made up of disabled children. 

 

If the NBA wants to watch an announcer who often comes off as not liking white people they should watch Charles Barkley's analysis of games for TNT. Barkley is noticeably more critical of white players and coaches. He's less critical of blacks who screw up.

I heard the entire recording. It appears she egged him on and kept asking leading questions. But he was stupid enough to respond.

They should punish him by making him watch the NBA-until the playoffs, there are a lot of guys going through the motions; A Matt Williams that benches a guy for not hustling couldn't field a team some nights. As for Sterling, he's purely and simply an idiot with money (but 2.7 mill less than last week)-idiots come in all colors. Don't get me started on Al Sharpton...but isn't it nice that genuinely classy folks, of all colors, never lack for close friends or admirers... 

Shaq is an employee of TNT, not the NBA

She was seen with magic johnson...

The NBA has final approval over all announcers. The NBA is rigid. They fiercely protect their product. They even have a player dress code for travel.

The Sterling family has a multi million dollar lawsuit against her. She vowed she would get him back. 

But the NBA can't fire a TNT employee for cause...TNT has to do that.  He wouldn't be covered under players union anymore either.  They might twist his arm into resigning, but that's about all they could do.

Remember the good ol day's when Jessie Jackson would just extort people that hurt his feelings?

The NBA can't fire him. But they have the right to tell TNT he can't do NBA games. Is TNT going to keep him to announce cartoons and tv shows?

Didn't the commissioner say that Shaq is a part owner of the Kings? 

Oh, right.  He did say that...minority owner.  He was quite proud of how that proves his league is diverse.  That does make it more interesting.

For those who are wondering what Shaq did...

 

http://nypost.com/2014/04/28/s...isabled-fans-selfie/

 

 

 

 

IF Shaq is a part owner then he should be banned from the league as well, along with Kobe Bryant for raping that girl, and the nut that kille  a limo driver. 

 

The fact is the NBA is a notch above the WWF  , letting officials bet on games,

 

Oh wait what about the moral fiber of on Magic Johnson, does he not have HIV?  how did that heppen? going home to the wife every night? 

 

Why is it that if a person does not like another, or a life style that all the sudden I'm labeled a hater, can I not have my own opinions?  

Biggerpapi: well-said.   A little Golden Rule application seems to be in order for all.

Can't believe they r letting the wife still show up. In one story she says those r his beliefs and she doesn't agree w them. Yet, she stays married to this racist(had to know his beliefs)and another story says they won't get divorced due to money issues. Apparently they own many businesses/real estate and they would have to audit books to divide the money. So, she turns a head to his racism, cheating, and lives that way because she doesn't want to divide money. she was also listed in past discrimination lawsuits. Kick her out too! 

One color that will never suffer the effects of racism - green.

 

Listening to talk radio this morning and they brought up the Sterling fiasco and how people were giving back his donations.  Black guy calls in and says if the KKK showed up to pay off his mortgage they could burn all the crosses they want in his yard.

I liked the fact, that after reading that  Rachelle Sterling had publicly denounced sharing her husband's words, last Sunday, that after first speaking with the Clippers Coach, was allowed to joyfully share in being there at last nights game. I think it was the right decision. JMO

Sorta like when Kobe Bryant's wife  "forgiving" him for him raping a person by giving her a fat diamond ring.... John 8.7

 

THis guy has racist views, no doubt about it...... but much worse has been done and only  a slap on the wrist.......

Where's the outrage for this young man?

No one in particular has been labeled a "hater" in this thread, have they?

 

However, aren't we all haters in some way.  Don't we all hate something or somebody?

 

I have run across people that say they hate Liver and Onions.  I've run across people that hate another person. Many people simply hate losing. Hate is not always a bad thing.  

 

My point is there really is a lot of hate in the world, the bad type, too.  In fact, we Americans are among those that are hated by many.  IMO if a person is a hard line racist he is a hater!  

 

Someone disagreeing with something or even getting angry with another person does not make them a hater!

I guess Shaq gets a pass.....funny that Sterling was complaining to his "girlfriend" about instagram photos and the harm they can do while Shaq pulled this stunt.

This is sort of a problem. They've now set a precedent that is going to be hard to follow. Unfortunately, Sterling is such a despisable character that no one will dare step up and say anything. Where it hits the fan is when someone more popular (like Shaq) does something.

I for one, do not care if another NBA game is every played.  Not my sport of choice.  Hey can anyone remember Marv Albert ? 

Marv Albert is still doing play by play. He's a classic. I don't care what kind of underwear he has on.

KIck her out for her personal beliefs when she's not an owner? Why not just start interviewing all the fans and figure out if half of them should be at the games based on their behavior and beliefs? I looks like we're getting into the thought police here.

Yet the NAACP took Sterling's money knowing who and what he is. Now they want to sit down with him and discuss how they can continue taking his money.

I took the time to read the Wikipedia page on Sterling.  Apparently he has a long history of being quite an unsavory fellow.  Sued successfully for racial discrimination with his apartments; sanctioned in court for abusive litigation tactics; trying to take back a house he gave to a girlfriend by -- get this -- claiming she wasn't really his girlfriend, just his prostitute.  (He lost.)  You know you're a scumbag when your defense is based on admitting you consort with prostitutes.

 

And now this all comes out because this pathetic 80-year-old who apparently has to hang out with some young chicklet to make himself feel like he's still a man also (a) clings to a bigotry he's apparently held all his life and (b) can't control his mouth, either.

 

The question that bears asking is, why now?  There has been ample knowledge FOR YEARS of this guy's being a bigot.  Suddenly a lynch mob has formed, and now we have the new NBA Commissioner leaping in front of the angry mob and acting like that makes him a leader. 

 

I know an African-American lawyer who once made a point of defending a KKK member from a prosecution for cross burning (on his own property), on the grounds that free speech is only really free when the most offensive commentary is tolerated.  Not endorsed.  Not indulged.  Opposed with reason and with right on your side.  But still, tolerated. As in, we let it happen.  We roll our eyes and we move on with our lives.

 

And that would be if the man had said the stuff publicly.  This guy was just mouthing off to his little trophy girl.  To me, his main objective was to be a controlling jerk in his relationship.  That was loathsome enough.  The racism, however abhorrent, was probably ancillary.  Nobody was even hurt by it.  And yes, I also thought of how the NBA was thumping its chest about its moral rectitude while making icons out of a rapist, another fellow who contracted HIV because he cheated on his wife so often he lost count, and all sorts of other persons of low character.

 

There is a warm spot in hell awaiting Mr. Sterling, and his time will come soon enough.  On this earth, let's hope the rest of us haven't reached the point where just because every athlete and other celebrity feels it necessary to chime in with some piling-on tweet, we feel like it's OK to take millions of dollars from some one.  Today it's for a guy with views abhorrent to 99.999% of the people.  But at some point it'll be for someone with views objected to by 80%.  Then 60%.  Etc.

 

It's not so different from the publicly traded corporation that recently had its founder forced out as CEO because he had supported a state marriage amendment that had actually passed.  That is, he was actually in the majority, yet the media outrage machinery bullied him out. 

 

Ask yourself, are you a supporter of freedom of speech in America?  Or can a person be hounded, punished and taken from for having done nothing more than saying offensive things?

Shelby I agree.

       
       


Yep! That about sums it up!

       
       


Jerry,
I may agree with your point. But, it reminded me of something else. My 81 yr. old Dad, never allowed his 5 daughter's to use the word "hate". He called us on it every time. It stuck with me. So, I only strongly detested 2 people in my lifetime. And i eventually changed my opinion on both!

No, this is not a freedom of speech issue. Not even close.  If you think it is, you need to re-read the first amendment.

It doesn't seem to be a right to privacy issue either.  Snowden will be sad to hear that, but I'm sure the NSA is thrilled.

Just thought I'd take a stab at clearing up some of the "rights" issues involved. First, the Constitution's Bill of Rights has a specific application. It covers rights guaranteed individuals against governmental intrusions. Under the 14th Amendment, most of those rights are extended to include state governments. What it doesn't cover is private organizations and groups. So, you might ask, how come a private restaurant or hotel can't ban minorities? In those cases it isn't a matter of Constitutional rights, but federal law. Congress is allowed to restrict an organization's right to refuse service to minorities (it's Constitutional right to freedom of association) because such interest falls under the Commerce clause of the Constitution which gives Congress the authority to pass laws affecting interstate commerce. So, because travelers going from one state to another might use a hotel, Congress may pass laws putting reasonable restrictions on the hotel owner's rights because their is a governmental need which justifies a restriction of these rights. It may do the same with laws against discrimination in renting or selling property because to do so would be an infringement on the freedom guaranteed by the constitution for individuals to freely move between states.

 

For example, the NBA couldn't have a whites-only policy because there are laws covering discrimination in the work place based on race. However, there are no laws concerning Sterling's situation.

 

Of course, Sterling has first hand knowledge of this sort of thing, having been sued for wrongful termination of Elgin Baylor. Interestingly, though, this suit was not based on race, but rather on age discrimination. Similarly, he faced fines for breaking federal laws against discriniation based on both race and discrimination against families with children when he was found to have reused to rent to minorities and families.

 

The right to freedom of speech means the federal government can't act in a way which infringes on that right, but doesn't stop your boss from saying you can't speak at a political event or at the Rotary Club if no specific laws cover this. Similarly, economic classifications are not considered. The Supreme Court has several times (wrongly in my opinion) decided that lower economic classes are not a protected class. Women are also not considered a protected class in many areas. So, for example, a country club could not deny membership based on a man being black, but can deny someone membership because they are a woman or they are poor. Similarly, the NBA could not kick out Donald Sterling because he is Jewish, but they can eject him because he is racist or because he lost all of his money in the stock market and they don't want poor people owning NBA teams or for a variety of reasons that don't slam up against a law.

"No, this is not a freedom of speech issue. Not even close.  If you think it is, you need to re-read the first amendment."

 

Actually, I can quote it from memory if you like. 

 

In reality, it's a business issue for the NBA.  They are selling stuff, and the flow of money is being jeopardized.  Therefore they have to take action.  And the more they play to the crowd, the more they serve their interests.

 

And this may not be a First Amendment issue in that there's no governmental action involved, at least not yet.

 

But there is a freedom of speech issue here, because that concept is not limited to what's outlined in the First Amendment.  The question is the extent to which we're going to indulge the ability of the new media outrage machinery to go around smiting people for nothing more than saying things that are stupid and offensive.

 

If he had, e.g., fired someone because they were black, then he should be sued for the person's loss of income, other damages, punitive damage, attorney's fees, the whole thing. 

 

All he did here was shoot off his stupid mouth.  That may be deplorable, but you don't confiscate people's wealth for this. 

 

At least, I hope we don't reach that point.  Because who among us doesn't say something at some point that someone else may get offended by?  Especially if you're going to include things we say in private to one person, as opposed to saying them in a public forum.

 

It's bad enough when you have the Dixie Chicks situation or the Duck Dynasty situation, where someone says something that someone finds offensive and it costs them future income.  But here, Sterling's facing not just loss of future income, but a huge fine, and on top of that, he has to rush sell his franchise, which could cost him tens of millions more compared to the price it might have brought were it sold without time pressure.

 

I don't support this guy.  I think he's loathsome.  But am I the only one who sees something wrong with the sudden creation of a lynch mob, and everyone congratulating themselves on being a part of it? 

But there is a freedom of speech issue here, because that concept is not limited to what's outlined in the First Amendment.

 

The concept may be but the term "Freedom of Speech" is specifically linked to First Amendment issues. Ditto for "Freedom of Religion".  Ask any dictionary.   As for the rest, there's no lynch mob,  and the media hasn't done anything but make noise.  Sterling is a member of a private organization.  The punishment that organization has imposed is indeed harsh, but I can't imagine what anyone would want do about that, short of having  government agency step in to say their bylaws are invalid. That would government overreach, IMHO.

 

Nope. ESPN African American writer Jason Whitlock agrees. Very interesting take. Here's his lead:

 

"In our zeal to appear righteous or courageous or free of bigotry, a ratings-pleasing mob hell-bent on revenge turned Donald T. Sterling -- a victim of privacy invasion and white supremacy -- from villain to martyr.

 

In a society filled with impurities, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers committed the crime of speaking impure thoughts in the privacy of a duplex he apparently provided for his mistress. And now an angry, agenda-fueled mob provoked NBA commissioner Adam Silver into handing Sterling a basketball death sentence."

Here's the slippery slope Mark Cuban was talking about. Let's hang everyone who doesn't think the way "we" do. It's time for thought process cleansing.

 

http://ipad.sportsgrid.com/spo...dfe56d0bb8535c45a3/1