- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,713
- Reaction score
- 35,494
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Something about he doesn't have a right to own a team. Geez bud, I tried to compliment you for your honesty and you have a cow. WTF
I think my statement on this was perfectly clear and you are just pretending not to get it. Read it again.
Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon
Condemning someone is one thing, calling for them to be punished is quite another. One is expressing your opinion while the other is demanding there be punishment for an opinion you disagree with.
Boycott all you want but don't demand someone be punished for having views you disagree with. That crosses a line.
Stifling free speech is the same as burning books.
No it doesn't.
Yes I said you libs in your fondest dreams would like to make racism illegal but as of now it is not and I never said it was.
HUH? One is thought the other is action. Apples oranges.
If you fear being drug over the coals for what you say then you fear to say what you think. Kinda like living in Cuba or Nazi Germany or the USSR. Is that really the America you want?
I don't see the right to own a team listed in the constitution.
I think my statement on this was perfectly clear and you are just pretending not to get it. Read it again.
Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon
Condemning someone is one thing, calling for them to be punished is quite another. One is expressing your opinion while the other is demanding there be punishment for an opinion you disagree with.
He is a franchise holder. True he may own the team but he doesn't own the NBA. That is the franchise name he made an agreement to own the team. It's like if a McDonald's owner decided to change the menu, alterthe color scheme and do things out side of the franchise agreement the corporate owner of the name can strip his title from the owner of the individual franchise. Since owning a team is only owning a name (you can't own the players) I think they can take it back. The constitution only says the government can't intervene.Technically it is in there in the right to own property. But as I have always said a right to something does not constitute the requirement that someone gives it to you. So the right to own the team (or anything else ownable) is dependant upon the ability to obtain it. The right remains even if one cannot obtain it.
He is a franchise holder. True he may own the team but he doesn't own the NBA. That is the franchise name he made an agreement to own the team. It's like if a McDonald's owner decided to change the menu, alterthe color scheme and do things out side of the franchise agreement the corporate owner of the name can strip his title from the owner of the individual franchise. Since owning a team is only owning a name (you can't own the players) I think they can take it back. The constitution only says the government can't intervene.
I think my statement on this was perfectly clear and you are just pretending not to get it. Read it again.
Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon
Condemning someone is one thing, calling for them to be punished is quite another. One is expressing your opinion while the other is demanding there be punishment for an opinion you disagree with.
Even so his right to own it is still intact. Simply because he has entered into a contract and that contract has stipulations as to how his ownership can be revoked does not affect his rightto ownership. Additionally I believe that the government can actually interfere in the affairs of the various sports leagues as at least some are legal monopolies. But that is hazy recall, so I am quite willing to be corrected.
I think the guy is well within his rights to be racist if he wants. I also don't believe he should be forced to sell his team (which he's said he won't do). From what I understand, the NBA has no by-laws that regulate the speech of any owner. The commissioner may have over stepped his bounds with the lifetime ban. Any lawyer worth his salt will most likely carve the NBA up on this. I have heard numerous legal analysts say (on ESPN radio) that while the NBA was right in doing what it did, the legal ramifications could get ugly IF Sterling decides to fight it. I'm interested to see if he does. IMO, the dude should be able to say whatever he feels like saying.
He obviously doesn't allow it to affect his decisions with the team. He was the second NBA team owner in league history to have a black General Manager (Elgin Baylor), he just let a successful white coach's contract expire (Vinny Del Negro) and hired a black coach for this season (Doc Rivers), the majority of his team is black, he was nominated for an award from the NAACP, etc, etc. I say all that to show that the NBA, while having a recording of him saying racist things, has nothing else to use against him as far as proving his dealings with the team were of a racist nature. We'll see what the legal system does with it. It could get ugly if Sterling wants to fight.
except whoops this guy doesn't know what the Constitution says and that is the key.I rest my case:
NBA Lacks the Authority To Force Donald Sterling To Sell the Clippers | FOX Sports on MSN
The dude ain't selling and there's nothing they can do about it
Explain. I don't see where Sterling violated the Constitution. He can say what he wants. As I explained in the previous post, his apparent racist beliefs never affected his actual business decisions involving the team. This is evidenced by the fact that he employed only the second black GM, currently employs a black coach, employs a mostly black team, etc, etc.except whoops this guy doesn't know what the Constitution says and that is the key.
Right, so you think they are two seperate things. I'm acknowledging you feel that way.
I ask again.
Do you think people should not be allowed to demand punishment for an opinion they disagree with?
No it doesn't.
In any oppressive fascist country people are punished for opinions that are not accepted. You seem to want a fascist America, I don't.
I'm not racist myself but
You should be allowed to say or think anything you want and I think demanding punishment for people you disagree with makes you a fascist moron.
Depends what he means.
If he means it "crosses a line" of what he believes to be ethically or morally reasonable, then he's well within his right to believe that it crosses a line to him.
If he means it "crosses a line" of what is constitutionally or legally allowable, or that it crosses some kind of universal line of morality, then he's absolutely incorrect.
By the government they are punished. Huge difference.
In Nazi Germany the general public looted and ransacked Jew owned businesses and you are on the same path here.
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?