tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Another update:
http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249

There was some earlier discussion about whether Sterling was having this conversation over the phone or if he was bugged. He must've been bugged because in the beginning of the audio, you hear him ask for juice from Stiviano and he ends up with a glass of juice.

Also, a little quote that jumped out at me: "it isn't a question- we don't evaluate right and wrong, live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live in that culture." Sound suspicious much? If we don't evaluate right and wrong, then who does? The illumaniti! I wish playa2 was still around to get to the bottom of this. I really do miss the dude.

Who's "we"? And when "we" are done evaluating (and establishing) right and wrong, on what basis is it done? Do "we" get to vote on the issue?
You ask great questions, but then wonder if a banned rabid conspiracy theorist would have the answer(s).

I for one, can't believe IWG hasn't weighed in yet. Apologies if he already did, and I missed it.

What's worse, invasion of privacy or being a public bigot? I happen to think bigotry is worse. Should I keep that to myself?
Is everyone entitled to hold their own private racial predjudices, as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes?
So predjudice is okay, but racism isn't?

Out of the excess of the heart a man speaks.

"We"? "WE"?!?!The ominous "we". "WE"!!!!! That's who. Now excuse me while I go read the National Enquirer. But before I do....

I think that a man is free to believe what he wants to believe, publicly or privately. The only issue I have is if those beliefs are exercised or used in a manner to infringe on someone else's ability for self-determination. Like I said before, I don't necessarily have a problem with what Sterling said. Yeah, it pisses me off but he's free to think the way he does unless those comments are somehow put into action.

I agree, with his right to feel how he does.. but to express that and it has been documented that he has acted upon it as well, in such a position of power is the problem.. The NBA is a league with a union, there are other owners with a vested interest in how each team conducts business.... As a fan I could care less about that douchebag, but for the players and the owners, they are part of a league in which there is an owner, a man in a position of great power, with views and practices that are now causing big problems..

And herein lies the disconnect. You're making the same mistake that right-wing talk radio always makes. Yes, everyone has the right to free speech but that doesn't mean there are no consequences that accompany what you say. For example, if I smack a protein shake out the hands of a 'roided up body builder and make fun of him for being a grown man that wears spandex and he beats my ass into a coma, he's not doing it because he doesn't believe in free speech, lol. Same goes for Donald Sterling; he can say whatever he likes but then can't cry victim if no one wants to associate with him because of it.

NardDogNation wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Another update:
http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249

There was some earlier discussion about whether Sterling was having this conversation over the phone or if he was bugged. He must've been bugged because in the beginning of the audio, you hear him ask for juice from Stiviano and he ends up with a glass of juice.

Also, a little quote that jumped out at me: "it isn't a question- we don't evaluate right and wrong, live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live in that culture." Sound suspicious much? If we don't evaluate right and wrong, then who does? The illumaniti! I wish playa2 was still around to get to the bottom of this. I really do miss the dude.

Who's "we"? And when "we" are done evaluating (and establishing) right and wrong, on what basis is it done? Do "we" get to vote on the issue?
You ask great questions, but then wonder if a banned rabid conspiracy theorist would have the answer(s).

I for one, can't believe IWG hasn't weighed in yet. Apologies if he already did, and I missed it.

What's worse, invasion of privacy or being a public bigot? I happen to think bigotry is worse. Should I keep that to myself?
Is everyone entitled to hold their own private racial predjudices, as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes?
So predjudice is okay, but racism isn't?

Out of the excess of the heart a man speaks.

"We"? "WE"?!?!The ominous "we". "WE"!!!!! That's who. Now excuse me while I go read the National Enquirer. But before I do....

I think that a man is free to believe what he wants to believe, publicly or privately. The only issue I have is if those beliefs are exercised or used in a manner to infringe on someone else's ability for self-determination. Like I said before, I don't necessarily have a problem with what Sterling said. Yeah, it pisses me off but he's free to think the way he does unless those comments are somehow put into action.

I agree, with his right to feel how he does.. but to express that and it has been documented that he has acted upon it as well, in such a position of power is the problem.. The NBA is a league with a union, there are other owners with a vested interest in how each team conducts business.... As a fan I could care less about that douchebag, but for the players and the owners, they are part of a league in which there is an owner, a man in a position of great power, with views and practices that are now causing big problems..

And herein lies the disconnect. You're making the same mistake that right-wing talk radio always makes. Yes, everyone has the right to free speech but that doesn't mean there are no consequences that accompany what you say. For example, if I smack a protein shake out the hands of a 'roided up body builder and make fun of him for being a grown man that wears spandex and he beats my ass into a coma, he's not doing it because he doesn't believe in free speech, lol. Same goes for Donald Sterling; he can say whatever he likes but then can't cry victim if no one wants to associate with him because of it.

did you actually read my post? I agree there comes consequences for your actions, speech.... but he has the right to say what he wants, the fans have the right to not attend his games, but the players are under contract, the owners are in partnership with him owning the league, so it is different, they can't boycott him, so I agree, something should be done...

If he wants to say these things, he doesn't need to be an owner of a NBA franchise....

1) I can see why he (DS) would be pissed and see this as unfair. Some snippet of a private conversation meant for one person splashed all around publicly. Looks like it was released by his hussy when things got nasty between them. So this was a piece of a private conversation released by a scorned woman with malice as the key motivator

2) woohoo wooo... cry my a F-ing river on point #1. When your a wealthy public figure you play by a different set of rules then the rest of society. The little inconveniences that plague the regular population... guys like Sterling are above so much of that. With all the many perks that come with his lifestyle there are some fundamental rules public figures need to follow. If your a racist, bigot or pedophile, if you like hookers, or blow or weed (nm, that one's OK) or whatever it is from that long list of "oh my god he said what...????" quotes waiting for you, you keep that crap under the lid, cause if you get caught your going to have to answer. Now he's got to answer. No need to worry my UK faithful.. this guy will pay for it where it hurts him the most... in the wallet.

3) 3 pages in Im thinking... "one thread then wont get hijacked my Melo-hate" then it almost happened

4) As a nation we are too focused on the wrong and not the why. Everyone wants to hate DS for being racist. It would be nice to read a bit more about why this hurts us as a nation, and as a society. Rather the focus is always on the wrong. DS is wrong, he must be punished. The problem is the focus is on getting caught... and when thats the focus there will always be added resentment over the rules in the first place, sympathizers because of unfairness and general resentment towards the group that your trying to protect in the first place. Its an ugly human trait thats been around since written history but its one worth stomping out. Just see it for what it is, and educate our children against it.

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Back to the issues. Simmon's called it. Sterling has a long timeline of racist behavior that the nba was aware of but did not address. To address it now after an appearance of deciding cp3's destination should be the clips to improve a franchise that was owned by a racist owner is going to be hard to do. Sterling isn't going anywhere fast.

If that audio was unaltered and that was indeed authentic at a minimum he will be given a lengthy suspension perhaps as much as3-5years

What does a suspension entail? Does he still receive profits from the team?

i think the other owners do not want to set the precedent of removal/forced sell since they could be next for future transgressions.

You hit the nail on the head.

cuban says what i figure most of the owners really think
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner

they dont want this guy around for the marketing disaster, however they dont want to see the line set to get bounced either.

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Back to the issues. Simmon's called it. Sterling has a long timeline of racist behavior that the nba was aware of but did not address. To address it now after an appearance of deciding cp3's destination should be the clips to improve a franchise that was owned by a racist owner is going to be hard to do. Sterling isn't going anywhere fast.

If that audio was unaltered and that was indeed authentic at a minimum he will be given a lengthy suspension perhaps as much as3-5years

What does a suspension entail? Does he still receive profits from the team?

i think the other owners do not want to set the precedent of removal/forced sell since they could be next for future transgressions.

You hit the nail on the head.

cuban says what i figure most of the owners really think
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner

they dont want this guy around for the marketing disaster, however they dont want to see the line set to get bounced either.

Was watching the Rachel Maddow Show and they had a link to an article from ESPN that suggested the NBA Constitution had bylaws for getting rid of an owner. If three-fourths of the body determine that a certain owner is bad for the league, they can actually force him to sell. If that is true and gets more spotlight, it'd be hard for those owners not to vote against him. There is a mob growing against Sterling and that ire, can just as easily turn against them. These are delicate times for the NBA.

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Back to the issues. Simmon's called it. Sterling has a long timeline of racist behavior that the nba was aware of but did not address. To address it now after an appearance of deciding cp3's destination should be the clips to improve a franchise that was owned by a racist owner is going to be hard to do. Sterling isn't going anywhere fast.

If that audio was unaltered and that was indeed authentic at a minimum he will be given a lengthy suspension perhaps as much as3-5years

What does a suspension entail? Does he still receive profits from the team?

i think the other owners do not want to set the precedent of removal/forced sell since they could be next for future transgressions.

You hit the nail on the head.

cuban says what i figure most of the owners really think
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner

they dont want this guy around for the marketing disaster, however they dont want to see the line set to get bounced either.

Was watching the Rachel Maddow Show and they had a link to an article from ESPN that suggested the NBA Constitution had bylaws for getting rid of an owner. If three-fourths of the body determine that a certain owner is bad for the league, they can actually force him to sell. If that is true and gets more spotlight, it'd be hard for those owners not to vote against him. There is a mob growing against Sterling and that ire, can just as easily turn against them. These are delicate times for the NBA.

Really? Dolan's bad for the league! A thriving team in NYC would bring in lots of money. Maybe they can vote out both these guys!

I'd like to stand on my moral soapbox but I thought of that almost as soon as the report was made, LMFAO. Maybe one of us can go in, special ops style, and record Dolan making some controversial comments, lol.

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Back to the issues. Simmon's called it. Sterling has a long timeline of racist behavior that the nba was aware of but did not address. To address it now after an appearance of deciding cp3's destination should be the clips to improve a franchise that was owned by a racist owner is going to be hard to do. Sterling isn't going anywhere fast.

If that audio was unaltered and that was indeed authentic at a minimum he will be given a lengthy suspension perhaps as much as3-5years

What does a suspension entail? Does he still receive profits from the team?

i think the other owners do not want to set the precedent of removal/forced sell since they could be next for future transgressions.

You hit the nail on the head.

cuban says what i figure most of the owners really think
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner

they dont want this guy around for the marketing disaster, however they dont want to see the line set to get bounced either.

Was watching the Rachel Maddow Show and they had a link to an article from ESPN that suggested the NBA Constitution had bylaws for getting rid of an owner. If three-fourths of the body determine that a certain owner is bad for the league, they can actually force him to sell. If that is true and gets more spotlight, it'd be hard for those owners not to vote against him. There is a mob growing against Sterling and that ire, can just as easily turn against them. These are delicate times for the NBA.

Really? Dolan's bad for the league! A thriving team in NYC would bring in lots of money. Maybe they can vote out both these guys!

I'd like to stand on my moral soapbox but I thought of that almost as soon as the report was made, LMFAO. Maybe one of us can go in, special ops style, and record Dolan making some controversial comments, lol.

Well I just meant vote him out for incompetence

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Back to the issues. Simmon's called it. Sterling has a long timeline of racist behavior that the nba was aware of but did not address. To address it now after an appearance of deciding cp3's destination should be the clips to improve a franchise that was owned by a racist owner is going to be hard to do. Sterling isn't going anywhere fast.

If that audio was unaltered and that was indeed authentic at a minimum he will be given a lengthy suspension perhaps as much as3-5years

What does a suspension entail? Does he still receive profits from the team?

i think the other owners do not want to set the precedent of removal/forced sell since they could be next for future transgressions.

You hit the nail on the head.

cuban says what i figure most of the owners really think
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner

they dont want this guy around for the marketing disaster, however they dont want to see the line set to get bounced either.

Was watching the Rachel Maddow Show and they had a link to an article from ESPN that suggested the NBA Constitution had bylaws for getting rid of an owner. If three-fourths of the body determine that a certain owner is bad for the league, they can actually force him to sell. If that is true and gets more spotlight, it'd be hard for those owners not to vote against him. There is a mob growing against Sterling and that ire, can just as easily turn against them. These are delicate times for the NBA.

Really? Dolan's bad for the league! A thriving team in NYC would bring in lots of money. Maybe they can vote out both these guys!

I'd like to stand on my moral soapbox but I thought of that almost as soon as the report was made, LMFAO. Maybe one of us can go in, special ops style, and record Dolan making some controversial comments, lol.

Well I just meant vote him out for incompetence

That's too "iffy" for my taste. We need a method that is tried and true.

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Back to the issues. Simmon's called it. Sterling has a long timeline of racist behavior that the nba was aware of but did not address. To address it now after an appearance of deciding cp3's destination should be the clips to improve a franchise that was owned by a racist owner is going to be hard to do. Sterling isn't going anywhere fast.

If that audio was unaltered and that was indeed authentic at a minimum he will be given a lengthy suspension perhaps as much as3-5years

What does a suspension entail? Does he still receive profits from the team?

i think the other owners do not want to set the precedent of removal/forced sell since they could be next for future transgressions.

You hit the nail on the head.

cuban says what i figure most of the owners really think
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner

they dont want this guy around for the marketing disaster, however they dont want to see the line set to get bounced either.

Was watching the Rachel Maddow Show and they had a link to an article from ESPN that suggested the NBA Constitution had bylaws for getting rid of an owner. If three-fourths of the body determine that a certain owner is bad for the league, they can actually force him to sell. If that is true and gets more spotlight, it'd be hard for those owners not to vote against him. There is a mob growing against Sterling and that ire, can just as easily turn against them. These are delicate times for the NBA.

Really? Dolan's bad for the league! A thriving team in NYC would bring in lots of money. Maybe they can vote out both these guys!

I'd like to stand on my moral soapbox but I thought of that almost as soon as the report was made, LMFAO. Maybe one of us can go in, special ops style, and record Dolan making some controversial comments, lol.

I think that is what herb did and he got a life time contract to keep quiet and be a bench potato

He got 6 figures and courtside seats for a decade and a half. Didn't sound like too bad a gig.