(05-05-2014 01:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

I'm just glad we can finally agree that the man is a racist bigot. It was apparently difficult for some to admit last week.

Not really. You just seemingly have a hard times discussing the topic at hand.

Let's try this- Let's grant the old mans a racist. A virulent, dedicated "true" racist, as in believes in the innate superiority of white people over ALL others, lets just go with that, k?

Do we now start to confiscate the properties of anyone exhibiting racist behavior? Do we take the rental properties he owns too? What about his cars, house, boats, whatever else? Do we apply that uniformly across the board? Who makes these decisions? A Board of "racist experts"? Yes, I know the NBA s a private "club" and can do as they please, so do we look into the private conversations of all the other owners? If not , why not?

Very dangerous game we're starting to play out there. If I leave a racist phone message on my buddies cellphone and his son that hates me decides to post it on-line, do I forfeit my house? How about those that speak out about the "White Devil?" Is that racist?

It's really pretty simple. Racism should not be tolerated in any way shape or form. Anyone who exhibits racism should be expected to suffer the consequences.

I can't make it any more simple than that.

Fair enough. So who makes these decisions about what's "racism" and what's not?

By not tolerating it, what should we do to insure it doesn't happen? What should the proscribed consequences be?

They have to be codified so as to be uniformly applied, correct? Otherwise we simply have mob rule.

Yep, simple is as simple does...

(05-05-2014 01:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

I'm just glad we can finally agree that the man is a racist bigot. It was apparently difficult for some to admit last week.

Not really. You just seemingly have a hard times discussing the topic at hand.

Let's try this- Let's grant the old mans a racist. A virulent, dedicated "true" racist, as in believes in the innate superiority of white people over ALL others, lets just go with that, k?

Do we now start to confiscate the properties of anyone exhibiting racist behavior? Do we take the rental properties he owns too? What about his cars, house, boats, whatever else? Do we apply that uniformly across the board? Who makes these decisions? A Board of "racist experts"? Yes, I know the NBA s a private "club" and can do as they please, so do we look into the private conversations of all the other owners? If not , why not?

Very dangerous game we're starting to play out there. If I leave a racist phone message on my buddies cellphone and his son that hates me decides to post it on-line, do I forfeit my house? How about those that speak out about the "White Devil?" Is that racist?

It's really pretty simple. Racism should not be tolerated in any way shape or form. Anyone who exhibits racism should be expected to suffer the consequences.

I can't make it any more simple than that.

So Jamie Foxx should be banned from Hollywood:
http://www.ebony.com/black-listed/entert...2fVeE1OVMs

Cause Paula Deen was after she admitted to using the N word 20 years prior to her fame.

And of course ya boy Jay-Z and his 5% BS. He should be banned from making records.

Do we even want to touch the subject of Eric Holder?

(05-05-2014 01:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

I'm just glad we can finally agree that the man is a racist bigot. It was apparently difficult for some to admit last week.

Not really. You just seemingly have a hard times discussing the topic at hand.

Let's try this- Let's grant the old mans a racist. A virulent, dedicated "true" racist, as in believes in the innate superiority of white people over ALL others, lets just go with that, k?

Do we now start to confiscate the properties of anyone exhibiting racist behavior? Do we take the rental properties he owns too? What about his cars, house, boats, whatever else? Do we apply that uniformly across the board? Who makes these decisions? A Board of "racist experts"? Yes, I know the NBA s a private "club" and can do as they please, so do we look into the private conversations of all the other owners? If not , why not?

Very dangerous game we're starting to play out there. If I leave a racist phone message on my buddies cellphone and his son that hates me decides to post it on-line, do I forfeit my house? How about those that speak out about the "White Devil?" Is that racist?

It's really pretty simple. Racism should not be tolerated in any way shape or form. Anyone who exhibits racism should be expected to suffer the consequences.

I can't make it any more simple than that.

What consequences?

Dachau? Auschwitz? (You'll have to look them up yourself)

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/who-among-us/

Quote:If the NBA establishes the precedent that it can force the sale of an owner’s property because of one’s illiberal speech, however odious, what now is the new standard of behavior? A sort of descending French Revolutionary justice, predicated on the sound and fury of the mob?

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I said it because I don't, for one second, think he's a racist. Bigot? Sure, but we're all bigots in some way. He told his black girlfriend not to bring black guys to the game. Lots of whites don't date blacks, and vice versa. That doesn't make them racist, and this doesn't make Sterling racist. Just a storyline for the left media to try to hurt the right. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

Anyways, I said sterling should have his teeth kicked in and anyone who agrees with his remarks should also have their teeth kicked in.

A certain numbnut replied to my post with "How bout I kick your teeth in, poosy"

Another dumb*** replied to his post with

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

Anyways, I said sterling should have his teeth kicked in and anyone who agrees with his remarks should also have their teeth kicked in.

A certain numbnut replied to my post with "How bout I kick your teeth in, poosy"

Another dumb*** replied to his post with

So, you think people with unpopular opinions should be physically assaulted.

I just want to make sure I read you right.

(05-05-2014 01:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

I'm just glad we can finally agree that the man is a racist bigot. It was apparently difficult for some to admit last week.

Not really. You just seemingly have a hard times discussing the topic at hand.

Let's try this- Let's grant the old mans a racist. A virulent, dedicated "true" racist, as in believes in the innate superiority of white people over ALL others, lets just go with that, k?

Do we now start to confiscate the properties of anyone exhibiting racist behavior? Do we take the rental properties he owns too? What about his cars, house, boats, whatever else? Do we apply that uniformly across the board? Who makes these decisions? A Board of "racist experts"? Yes, I know the NBA s a private "club" and can do as they please, so do we look into the private conversations of all the other owners? If not , why not?

Very dangerous game we're starting to play out there. If I leave a racist phone message on my buddies cellphone and his son that hates me decides to post it on-line, do I forfeit my house? How about those that speak out about the "White Devil?" Is that racist?

It's really pretty simple. Racism should not be tolerated in any way shape or form. Anyone who exhibits racism should be expected to suffer the consequences.

I can't make it any more simple than that.

Is "exhibits" the operational standard here? Because everyone alive is a racist at heart (or a liar). So if we keep it hidden, we're OK?

(05-05-2014 01:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

THIS. I couldn't have said it any better. Sadly we have some that post here who are either too stupid to understand the difference or intentionally obtuse to promote their agendas.

I hate to break it to you genius but no one is taking his assets.

Did we know that when we were having the conversations regarding the legality of the potential punishments? No, we didn't.

Quote:With the pressure mounting, Silver is reportedly looking at the "nuclear option" on Sterling, according to Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski. There's a provision in the NBA bylaws that could potentially allow Silver to summon a vote of league owners to strip Sterling of his ownership, with the league taking over the team until it could be sold.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/29/56...yers-union

So, who's the "genius" again?

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

Anyways, I said sterling should have his teeth kicked in and anyone who agrees with his remarks should also have their teeth kicked in.

A certain numbnut replied to my post with "How bout I kick your teeth in, poosy"

Another dumb*** replied to his post with

You originally made the comment about someone, then got all butt hurt when someone said the same about you...

FFS, here

(05-05-2014 01:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

THIS. I couldn't have said it any better. Sadly we have some that post here who are either too stupid to understand the difference or intentionally obtuse to promote their agendas.

I hate to break it to you genius but no one is taking his assets.

Did we know that when we were having the conversations regarding the legality of the potential punishments? No, we didn't.

Quote:With the pressure mounting, Silver is reportedly looking at the "nuclear option" on Sterling, according to Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski. There's a provision in the NBA bylaws that could potentially allow Silver to summon a vote of league owners to strip Sterling of his ownership, with the league taking over the team until it could be sold.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/29/56...yers-union

So, who's the genius again?

A forced sale is unlikely to result in fair market value being received.

In an ultimate irony, the IRS calculates the capital tax gain impact on market value when they consider a sale as below market. The precedent has been set to avoid someone from "selling" their business to their heirs below market cost.

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

But the implication here is pretty clear... Either he meant people were saying that he was not a bigot or the defending a persons offensive speech behavior is the same thing as sanctioning the behavior.

I want him to put a steak in the ground.

(05-05-2014 01:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

But the implication here is pretty clear... Either he meant people were saying that he was not a bigot or the defending a persons offensive speech behavior is the same thing as sanctioning the behavior.

I want him to put a steak in the ground.

(05-05-2014 01:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

But the implication here is pretty clear... Either he meant people were saying that he was not a bigot or the defending a persons offensive speech behavior is the same thing as sanctioning the behavior.

I want him to put a steak in the ground.

As long as it isn't a ribeye. I like ribeye.

(05-05-2014 01:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/who-among-us/

Quote:If the NBA establishes the precedent that it can force the sale of an owner’s property because of one’s illiberal speech, however odious, what now is the new standard of behavior? A sort of descending French Revolutionary justice, predicated on the sound and fury of the mob?

Yep. There you go. maybe we could just vote what the punishment should be on say, Facebook or something? That's sounds like a good idea. If the person is a little puke like that Canadian dope, we can let his "peers" select his punishment on tumblr or somewhere comparable.

Good idea, Fit. You've got this nailed up tight! "No tolerance, must suffer consequence"... blah blah, ha, ha.

(05-05-2014 12:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

I'm just glad we can finally agree that the man is a racist bigot. It was apparently difficult for some to admit last week.

It's difficult for me and here's why:

rac·ist/ˈrāsist/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists
1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist

I'll admit to not following this story as close as some of you have, but I did hear about a minute or so of the recording in question. At no point did he act superior to anyone. Take this into consideration:

A. Would a real racist in the privacy of his own home call blacks blacks or something more harsh?

B. Would a real racist make millionaires out of black people?

C. Would a real racist have a black mistress?

D. How do you tell a black girl not to hang out with black people and not expect to be kicked in the nuts unless there was more to the story?

E. Up until this year Sterling's comments would not have gotten him a 15 yard penalty in football. And they still won't (unless he said something I'm unaware of)

We don't know why Sterling went on that rant, but telling a black girl not to hang out with black guys is not exactly racist unless someone here can provide the reason he said that.

I HATE ALL MINORITIES!!!!

There, I said it. Of course I don't mean it, but now that I've said that am I automatically a racist? Unlike Sterling, do I get the benefit of doubt? If someone copied my comment and pasted it into another thread it would appear that I really am a racist. Context is what is missing in the sterling case.

Finally, if this guy is to be called out on the carpet and publically humiliated then shouldn't the same apply to everyone who said similar or worse things? People immediately coming to mind are Oprah, Shaprton, Jackson, Obama, Holder, Nagin, Jim Brown, and a lot more people that I can't think of at this moment.

(05-05-2014 01:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

Anyways, I said sterling should have his teeth kicked in and anyone who agrees with his remarks should also have their teeth kicked in.

A certain numbnut replied to my post with "How bout I kick your teeth in, poosy"

Another dumb*** replied to his post with

So, you think people with unpopular opinions should be physically assaulted.

I just want to make sure I read you right.

Yup, just like i believe in the death penalty... do you have a problem with that?

(05-05-2014 01:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

But the implication here is pretty clear... Either he meant people were saying that he was not a bigot or the defending a persons offensive speech behavior is the same thing as sanctioning the behavior.

I want him to put a steak in the ground.

No... the implication was pretty clear, there is a lot of racist bigots on this board who defended the clippers' owner for being racist bigot. It isn't that hard to understand

(05-05-2014 12:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Saying his is an idiot makes it sound as if he didn't know any better.

What? Saying he's an idiot just means he is an idiot. Has nothing to do with him not knowing any better.

(05-05-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Questioning the legality of the punishment suggests that the punishment is not warranted. Therefore, another form of excusing his behavior.

Questioning the legality of the punishment has nothing to do with excusing his behavior. You made that leap. Most folks think the guy is flat out racist. Taking the man's assets is a whole other legal matter for the courts to eventually decide.

I'm just glad we can finally agree that the man is a racist bigot. It was apparently difficult for some to admit last week.

I'd love to know which posters were not in agreement on Sterling's bigotry? I think we were all pretty much in agreement on that.

(05-05-2014 10:46 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:36 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well at least we finally agree that Donald Sterling is a racist bigot.

Some people on this forum were defending him last week.

Who was saying he was not a racist bigot last week?

I can't stand fit, but he didn't say nobody was calling him a racist bigot, he said people were defending him...

But the implication here is pretty clear... Either he meant people were saying that he was not a bigot or the defending a persons offensive speech behavior is the same thing as sanctioning the behavior.

I want him to put a steak in the ground.

No... the implication was pretty clear, there is a lot of racist bigots on this board who defended the clippers' owner for being racist bigot. It isn't that hard to understand

Who... Who defending anything he said and how?

Saying a mans personal life should not be invaded and puniched for offensive speech is not defense of that speech....