- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,566
- Reaction score
- 22,189
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
True, except that there seems to be some people who disagree with such concepts.First Amendment rights do not enter into this scenario at all.
True, except that there seems to be some people who disagree with such concepts.
What's next, thought police?
"Thought Police" is just another meaningless buzzword.
If they start voting people out..............well, everyone could get a turn at the chopping block sooner or later for just about anything.
Okay, so the next issue becomes gay marriage, Orlando's owner is a traditionalist so he could be next. Then when that is settled there could be a war on drunk driving, the NBA gets on board and an owner slips up and gets caught DWI, that becomes a morals clause violation and then the owners decide "in the best interest of the league" that he shouldn't own a team anymore. Next thing you know, an owner forgets to take a gun out of his suitcase traveling and he "disgraced the league", someone might say something a little too harsh concerning Obama, or may question an action by the active commissioner of the league................................That's not true. You're presuming that 75% of the owners would be willing to go along with a frivolous action. Really, you're belittling what Sterling did and is, as if it could be "just about anything". Like what he did is really not a big deal. Why are you downplaying what he did?
The NBA should disenfranchise him, leaving him with nothing - a total loss. Someone else can build a new team in LA.
Okay, so the next issue becomes gay marriage, Orlando's owner is a traditionalist so he could be next. Then when that is settled there could be a war on drunk driving, the NBA gets on board and an owner slips up and gets caught DWI, that becomes a morals clause violation and then the owners decide "in the best interest of the league" that he shouldn't own a team anymore. Next thing you know, an owner forgets to take a gun out of his suitcase traveling and he "disgraced the league", someone might say something a little too harsh concerning Obama, or may question an action by the active commissioner of the league................................
This is all the farther anyone should expect. Those of you wanting more, maybe you should check you vengeance...Honestly, he is going to probably have to sell without that vote because he is going to lose his customer base, let the market decide that.
No, I've used the words reprehensible, abhorrent, horrible, racist, and scumbag to describe the actions and character of the man and I stand by every one of those. What I think people need to realize is that even in the face of the disgusting things he said, precedents can be used to expand this to others later so be careful how you treat this case, that in no way minimizes the awful things Sterling said, IOW, him being banned and the fine, I'm good with, forcing him to sell by league decree may be a bit too far and the market is going to do that anyway.You're just belittling what Sterling did. You're trying to equate it to minor things. You're apologizing for racism. You're pretending racism is not a big deal. Perhaps it's not, for you, but it is for the rest of us. We don't consider it a minor sociological thing and we don't compare it to drunk driving.
No, I've used the words reprehensible, abhorrent, horrible, racist, and scumbag to describe the actions and character of the man and I stand by every one of those.
What I think people need to realize is that even in the face of the disgusting things he said, precedents can be used to expand this to others later so be careful how you treat this case,
that in no way minimizes the awful things Sterling said,
IOW, him being banned and the fine, I'm good with, forcing him to sell by league decree may be a bit too far and the market is going to do that anyway.
Ignorance drives the discussion in these things when they say things like this.
No, its more like your crowd doesn't believe in personal responsibility. What you are really advocating is that people be free of the consequences of their choosing to exercise their free speech rights. No one is curtailing Sterling at all. He remains free to say whatever the hell he wants.
No I do not, but I can tell you that when I was a professionally licensed insurance agent had I gotten one the state could have suspended or revoked it. Here is what concerns me, the commissioner is asking the owners to act "in the best interests of the league". While I feel that he has a very valid point, it is chilling to think of "the league's best interests" being expanded to the cause du jour. At the end of the day, the man said horrible things but still has property at stake.And you think getting a DUI is on the same level? How about wearing a belt that doesn't match the shoes?
It's a valid concern.That's BS.
It's just thinking ahead. I listened to some people saying in media that Orlando's owner "could be a target" because he supports traditional marriage and the owners don't like his stance either. So that is another issue "to be dealt with at a later time", there are lots of things that aren't PC that a lot of people could be "guilty" of. Sterling well may deserve the vote against him, but it could set a precedent of eliminating anyone who doesn't tow the line.Yes, it does. You're pretending that minor crap will be treated the same. This clearly implies that racism is a minor thing, or at least comparable. That's minimizing racism.
I don't know if that's even feasible under the charter, but then you have a vacuum in that a team just disappears, that would hurt the league just as much with relocation, finding ownership, etc.They shouldn't force him to sell. They should disenfranchise him, leaving him with nothing to sell.
No I do not, but I can tell you that when I was a professionally licensed insurance agent had I gotten one the state could have suspended or revoked it. Here is what concerns me, the commissioner is asking the owners to act "in the best interests of the league". While I feel that he has a very valid point, it is chilling to think of "the league's best interests" being expanded to the cause du jour. At the end of the day, the man said horrible things but still has property at stake.
It's a valid concern.
It's just thinking ahead. I listened to some people saying in media that Orlando's owner "could be a target" because he supports traditional marriage and the owners don't like his stance either. So that is another issue "to be dealt with at a later time", there are lots of things that aren't PC that a lot of people could be "guilty" of. Sterling well may deserve the vote against him, but it could set a precedent of eliminating anyone who doesn't tow the line.
I don't know if that's even feasible under the charter, but then you have a vacuum in that a team just disappears, that would hurt the league just as much with relocation, finding ownership, etc.
Just association I agree. We are talking about a property issue though so it gets more complex.So what. "Freedom of association" remember??
They can do as they wish, it isn't my consequence to bear. I can also point out the potential pitfalls.It's not a valid concern. It's a private organization and they can do what they want. Such action requires 75% of the owners to agree. Who the hell are you to decide what's best for them and their private organization?
I support property rights even when I think a decision is unfair or outright stupid, I can see more than one side of issues.Good! It's the organization's right. I don't see you complaining about churches excluding gays. You SUPPORT racial discrimination in business. But NOW you have a problem with "freedom of association"? Why? Because now it's the scumbags that are getting a taste of it?
They may be able to, I'm not all that familiar with their charter and still learning stuff about it.I heard they can disenfranchise him. The void would be nothing. People are falling over each other to get this kind of a trophy possession.
The guy is a billionaire, I don't really think he would care about that more than just being forced to sell.I think it's the right thing to do. 2.5m is nothing, but 500m would be the kick in the pants he deserves.
Just association I agree. We are talking about a property issue though so it gets more complex.
They can do as they wish, it isn't my consequence to bear. I can also point out the potential pitfalls.
I support property rights even when I think a decision is unfair or outright stupid, I can see more than one side of issues.
They may be able to, I'm not all that familiar with their charter and still learning stuff about it.
The guy is a billionaire, I don't really think he would care about that more than just being forced to sell.
Okay, so the next issue becomes gay marriage, Orlando's owner is a traditionalist so he could be next.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?