Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Unprecedented stuff happening on this NBA presser right now

Unprecedented stuff happening on this NBA presser right now

+8
TEOTWAWKI
Markle
knothead
Sal
Joanimaroni
Hospital Bob
QueenOfHearts
boards of FL
12 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 7]

Guest


Guest

In my business if an employee is hurting my business climate by their opinions......they are gone.

Having been a Corporate mindless shill that has sold his soul to the corporate world, I can see where your definition of morality will lead to the use the example about children. Some people have it, some dont. A mans soul is a terrible thing to waste. Fuck the truth and another other persons views and opinions,, it all about MY business. LOL You make me laugh...

Guest


Guest

Hallmark. Come into my office

Yes. Sir

Hallmark. You are a good worker but I am going to have to let you go

Damn Boss. Why?

As you know I am a sponsor of the Blue Wahoos.

I know. what does that have to do with me?

Every thing Hallmark Everything. Yesterday in the break room you were talking about how you would never go to a Game. If that gets back to certain people I could lose money.

But Mr Oats, it is just my opinion...

Sorry Grad It is my business I make the rules. Punch out and go home, I will mail you check to you. You can say what you want but not when it comes to me losing money..

Ok Boss. Thanks

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:I don't care about the sports. What I care about is a person being able to have a private opinion, even if I don't like it.

We are verging very close to the "thought police" sanctions. You don't need to commit a crime or break a law, you just need to think something we don't agree with and BAM, you're fucked!



You have never been near the corporate world.  The corporate climate of employment allows continual review under well designated expectations of performance.  So if a representative of ABC company while talking to potential customers sticks to their opinion which is contrary to the corporate brand, and as a result potentially brings harm to that brand......in a NY second that person would be gone.  In my business if an employee is hurting my business climate by their opinions......they are gone.....they are at will employees, and this idea that the individual in an association is superior to the overall good of that organization has NEVER existed in the corporate world.....NEVER.

There is no law that  being an ignorant racist hater is going to exact some kind of punishment, unless the same attitude is contrary to an organizations branding and policies, that hater can do his thing.  So if a teacher after school is arguing with another teacher why he cannot have sex with his students, and how hot he thinks Charlene is.....he has a right to his opinion.  However, once he has stated his opinion and a third party verifies the same in public......what do you think we should do with that teacher?
Do you think an at will teacher or a teacher with a morals clause in the union contract would not be facing sanctions?  The truth of your and Hallmarks argument is that there is nothing wrong with making racist comments in your opinion......and if both of you can belong to the child sex league where your philosophy is that every child should have sex with an adult of the opposite sex by their 13th birthday......you know like ancient polyonesian societies......you have a right to your opinion, but when you cannot even get your arms around the damage of the same.....I guess I could understand where you are coming from with your defense of evil.

I'm not defending evil, im defending freedom.

This man did not go out and cause purposeful harm, which I don't think there has been any harm to begin with. this man had his privacy invaded illegally. And although it is not a nice thing what he said, it is not against a law. he broke no laws.

now lets use a analogy that s a little better than pedo talk  Neutral 

Im Christian, I sell Christian supplies and art stuffs. A employ has an opinion that gays are great and goes and gets married in public at one of the first gay marriages in my state. I fire that employ because it is against my brand. Hope your happy.  Very Happy 

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Nice analogy Mr. Itch....but this we a private phone conversation between 2 people.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Mr Ichi wrote:Of course.  It would also mean I would not work for the said Ass Hole.  A quality some seem not to have.  Just sayin.  I guess it is a personal thing....

No, it's not "just a personal thing", Ichi. Especially now.

2seaoat



Nice analogy Mr. Itch....but this we a private phone conversation between 2 people.


Totally irrelevant once published.

An employee who harms the corporation or business will be dismissed because of mere opinions once published. You can argue that the two teachers were in a room with a closed door and somebody broke into the building and committed a crime in entry into that building without authority and overheard the conversation about Charlene, and guess what ........that teacher is history, and pointing out the wrong actions of the collector of the information does not in any way diminish the publication and damage to the organization with a continued association with the person who was having a private conversation. Just more rationalization for racism.....plain and simple. In another generation hopefully this conversation would not be necessary, but when the culture is so rooted in institutional racism, the opinions on this thread are not surprising.

The idea that a janitor in a Catholic Church is is free to wear a t shirt which expresses his opinion that priests rape children in his home, or an employee in a synagogue gets a tattoo of a swastika on his forehead which he covers with a band aid at work, but the employers become aware of the same...... that any sanctions against that individual is taking their freedom away. The difference between and absolute right, and a conditioned privilege is a concept which is a bridge too far for many who hold a core belief of racist ideology which is beyond their comprehension that the same could be offensive, or damaging to a brand or organization.......remarkable how the footprint left and the shoe of the perp match so perfectly..

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

2seaoat wrote:Nice analogy Mr. Itch....but this we a private phone conversation between 2 people.


Totally irrelevant once published.

An employee who harms the corporation or business will be dismissed because of mere opinions once published.  You can argue that the two teachers were in a room with a closed door and somebody broke into the building and committed a crime in entry into that building without authority and overheard the conversation about Charlene, and guess what ........that teacher is history, and pointing out the wrong actions of the collector of the information does not in any way diminish the publication and damage to the organization with a continued association with the person who was having a private conversation.  Just more rationalization for racism.....plain and simple.  In another generation hopefully this conversation would not be necessary, but when the culture is so rooted in institutional racism, the opinions on this thread are not surprising.

The idea that a janitor in a Catholic Church is is free to wear a t shirt which expresses his opinion that priests rape children in his home, or an employee in a synagogue gets a tattoo of a swastika on his forehead which he covers with a band aid at work, but the employers become aware of the same...... that any sanctions against that individual is taking their freedom away.   The difference between and absolute right, and a conditioned privilege is a concept which is a bridge too far for many who hold a core belief of racist ideology which is beyond their comprehension that the same could be offensive, or damaging to a brand or organization.......remarkable how the footprint left and the shoe of the perp match so perfectly..

A PRIVATE phone conversation....not in a public area. Apples and Oranges.

2seaoat



A PRIVATE phone conversation....not in a public area. Apples and Oranges.

Any phone conversation if talking to another person is capable of being published by either the words of the person on the other end listening to the person speak, or by other technological means which have no bearing or relevancy to the published opinion. It is the published opinion once verified which causes the brand damage. This will be hard for any racist to grasp......but it is not the invasion of privacy which shields the offensive statements, it is rather the beliefs which are contrary to the brand and cause that brand harm. What a tell......it is not racism if you speak privately and pretend racism does not exist.....wow.....the admission of the night. Lie and deny the truth, and this is acceptable behavior and should be protected, but the truth once published should be nullified because the lie and the expectation of avoidance of the truth is shielded by the private nature of the conversation......wow on steroids.

The whole issue of privacy and wrongful invasion of the same has been ruled on by the Supreme Court and there rulings are clear, absent any governmental action the truth cannot be shielded by the act of collection of said evidence.

Guest


Guest

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638

632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) The term "person" includes an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication. (c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. (d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. (e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility. (f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear.



Last edited by PkrBum on 4/30/2014, 10:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

He has hurt the public image of the team and of the entire NBA with his stupidity. Do you really think he cares about his team members? Only so far as they contribute to his bottom line. Sad...80 years old and still stupid.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Florida Texan,

You have a thread on here linking us to an interview of Willie Nelson by Rolling Stone magazine. In that interview Nelson says this...

"Well, I used to work in the fields a lot, pick cotton alongside of niggers, and there would be a whole field full of niggers singing the blues. And I'd pick along and listen to that all day long. I loved to hear them sing."


Guest


Guest

To be honest I should have stayed out of this thread. How the actions a white racist Billionaire and the actions of whore mongering Black performer, Magic 1000 woman Johnson, got into my consciousness is beyond me. I am the fool to even give shit what either one of them thinks. It has zero effect on my life or my actions. Zero!! I am going to do better. I failed my self LOL

2seaoat



The safeguards enumerated by the Fourth Amendment only apply against State Action, namely action taken by a governmental official or at the direction of a governmental official. Thus, actions taken by state or federal law enforcement officials or private persons working with law enforcement officials will be subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. Bugging, Wiretapping, and other related snooping activity performed by purely private citizens, such as private investigators, do not receive Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

Children.......PK....sit down and quit picking your nose.....listen carefully, a private citizen gathering evidence illegally does not change the admissibility of that evidence......it is admissible. The private investigator, or a bimbo who taped the phone conversation does not change the admissibility of the evidence, nor the right of the organization to rule on that evidence. If however, the bimbo was an agent of the federal government, the precedents are clear and Sterling would win in his litigation on a motion in Limine that the NBA could not use this information because of his fourth amendment rights were violated.......these laws are almost 100 years old in this country and common knowledge.

2seaoat



Your statutory restriction is irrelevant once published, and the Supreme Court will give it no constitutional protection, nor will the statue have any bearing on the published statements of Sterling, because once published it is not the truth, falsity, or even the illegality of the collection which are relevant, rather the evidence of the damage to the brand. That teacher may never have intended to have sex with his student Charlene, the collection of the evidence could have been from a burglar, but once published, it is the damage to the brand which is in evidence.

Guest


Guest

Smile
2seaoat wrote:He's allowed to have a opinion, and yes there are consequences to a opinion. I do not think his PRIVATE conversation should be made public though. This is why we have illegal wire tapping laws.


The Supreme Court has made it very clear for fifty plus years that the fruit of the poisonous tree cannot be used by the GOVERNMENT where the government's actions violated the the 4th amendment.  An individual action which brings evidence of a wrongdoing where that evidence would otherwise be poisoned by the acts of the government are in fact admissible.  So an association with strict bylaws which govern harm created by any individual or corporation in that association, can easily use that evidence to make a determination that he cannot be in that association.  Sterling can sue, and he will, but ultimately he will simply be trying to leverage for more millions on the transfer of the franchise.

I think that I would pursue a much different line of attack than the NBA commissioner has recommended.  I would do what they did to the MN franchise and take all draft choices away for 10 years.   I would also allow a new rule to be implemented in the NBA that teams could sit their stars and starting lineup when playing the Clippers for a period of 10 years.  Once you set this course, the probation would be in full force and effect until an arms length sale was negotiated.  What works in this situation is with time instead of profiting, he would lose all his sponsors and fan base and hit him where he understands.....his pocketbook.   Although I like the justice of the NBA approach, they are going to actually reward his bad behavior without a second prong.

I don't care about the sports. What I care about is a person being able to have a private opinion, even if I don't like it.

We are verging very close to the "thought police" sanctions. You don't need to commit a crime or break a law, you just need to think something we don't agree with and BAM, you're fucked!

A racist defending a racist. LOL!

Guest


Guest

[quote="Mr Ichi"]
Smile
2seaoat wrote:He's allowed to have a opinion, and yes there are consequences to a opinion. I do not think his PRIVATE conversation should be made public though. This is why we have illegal wire tapping laws.


The Supreme Court has made it very clear for fifty plus years that the fruit of the poisonous tree cannot be used by the GOVERNMENT where the government's actions violated the the 4th amendment.  An individual action which brings evidence of a wrongdoing where that evidence would otherwise be poisoned by the acts of the government are in fact admissible.  So an association with strict bylaws which govern harm created by any individual or corporation in that association, can easily use that evidence to make a determination that he cannot be in that association.  Sterling can sue, and he will, but ultimately he will simply be trying to leverage for more millions on the transfer of the franchise.

I think that I would pursue a much different line of attack than the NBA commissioner has recommended.  I would do what they did to the MN franchise and take all draft choices away for 10 years.   I would also allow a new rule to be implemented in the NBA that teams could sit their stars and starting lineup when playing the Clippers for a period of 10 years.  Once you set this course, the probation would be in full force and effect until an arms length sale was negotiated.  What works in this situation is with time instead of profiting, he would lose all his sponsors and fan base and hit him where he understands.....his pocketbook.   Although I like the justice of the NBA approach, they are going to actually reward his bad behavior without a second prong.

I don't care about the sports. What I care about is a person being able to have a private opinion, even if I don't like it.

We are verging very lose to the "thought police" sanctions. You don't need to commit a crime or break a law, you just need to think something we don't agree with and BAM, you're fucked!

 cheers cheers cheers Basketball Basketball Basketball  Well said!!  Thanks

/quote]

This is more than a person having a private opinion. He was trying to force her by threatening the relationship to also be a racist.

Guest


Guest

Mr Ichi wrote:To be honest I should have stayed out of this thread.  How the actions  a white racist Billionaire and the actions of whore mongering Black performer, Magic 1000 woman Johnson, got into my consciousness is beyond me.  I am the fool to even give shit what either one of them thinks.  It has zero effect on my life or my actions. Zero!! I am going to do better.  I failed my self LOL  


Unprecedented stuff happening on this NBA presser right now - Page 6 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXnUhXZd22CMxD-A2OAh9JT6uK3f4Ppa1SbnPlc5bAit3doQhNTQ

No surprise with the banana brain you have... I hear your pecker looks just like your avatar.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEGoZzCuGOQ

 Twisted Evil

Hi Bored! Enjoying your PM's?

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Floridatexan wrote:He has hurt the public image of the team and of the entire NBA with his stupidity.  Do you really think he cares about his team members?  Only so far as they contribute to his bottom line.  Sad...80 years old and still stupid.


I disagree. My image of the Clippers and the entire NBA has not changed one bit . I love the game and I enjoy watching the games.

What has changed is my opinion of Magic, if in fact he was part of this conspiracy. As far as the owner....he is still a typical old billionaire owner. The NBA to him is a business, he hires a host of people to manage and turn a profit for the organization.....tha is the bottom line for Sterling. Very few owners are in the business because of a true die hard love of the game. Jordan and Cuban are two exceptions in so far as their love for the game of basketball, however, even for them profit is still number one in running a multibillon dollar business.

Profit is number one. The players and coaches are contracted and well paid for their abilities. First and foremost....they are expected to increase profits for the organization, period.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Dreamsglore wrote:
Mr Ichi wrote:
Smile
2seaoat wrote:He's allowed to have a opinion, and yes there are consequences to a opinion. I do not think his PRIVATE conversation should be made public though. This is why we have illegal wire tapping laws.


The Supreme Court has made it very clear for fifty plus years that the fruit of the poisonous tree cannot be used by the GOVERNMENT where the government's actions violated the the 4th amendment.  An individual action which brings evidence of a wrongdoing where that evidence would otherwise be poisoned by the acts of the government are in fact admissible.  So an association with strict bylaws which govern harm created by any individual or corporation in that association, can easily use that evidence to make a determination that he cannot be in that association.  Sterling can sue, and he will, but ultimately he will simply be trying to leverage for more millions on the transfer of the franchise.

I think that I would pursue a much different line of attack than the NBA commissioner has recommended.  I would do what they did to the MN franchise and take all draft choices away for 10 years.   I would also allow a new rule to be implemented in the NBA that teams could sit their stars and starting lineup when playing the Clippers for a period of 10 years.  Once you set this course, the probation would be in full force and effect until an arms length sale was negotiated.  What works in this situation is with time instead of profiting, he would lose all his sponsors and fan base and hit him where he understands.....his pocketbook.   Although I like the justice of the NBA approach, they are going to actually reward his bad behavior without a second prong.

I don't care about the sports. What I care about is a person being able to have a private opinion, even if I don't like it.

We are verging very lose to the "thought police" sanctions. You don't need to commit a crime or break a law, you just need to think something we don't agree with and BAM, you're fucked!

 cheers cheers cheers Basketball Basketball Basketball  Well said!!  Thanks

/quote]

This is more than a person having a private opinion. He was trying to force her by threatening the relationship to also be a racist.

BS....he was protecting his ego. He didn't care what she did in private, he didn't care if she slept with all of them....he was attempting to control what she did at the game. She was being paid well to be his trophy. His money is and was his only magnet for a 20 year old...it wasn't his looks, personality or sexuality. You don't hire a prostitute to give their attention to some one else while with you and on your dime. She accepted the prostitute arrangement.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Joanimaroni wrote:he was protecting his ego.  He didn't care what she did in private, he didn't care if she slept with all of them....he was attempting to control what she did at the game. She was being paid well to be his trophy.

finally someone else gets it. lol

Nekochan

Nekochan

I don't feel a bit sorry for him but it does sound like he was set up. Sounds like a very sleazy set-up he had with that young woman.
I do wonder how the penalties against him can be enforced? If he cannot engage in any team business, how would he even be able to sell the team?

Guest


Guest

Joanimaroni wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Mr Ichi wrote:
Smile
2seaoat wrote:He's allowed to have a opinion, and yes there are consequences to a opinion. I do not think his PRIVATE conversation should be made public though. This is why we have illegal wire tapping laws.


The Supreme Court has made it very clear for fifty plus years that the fruit of the poisonous tree cannot be used by the GOVERNMENT where the government's actions violated the the 4th amendment.  An individual action which brings evidence of a wrongdoing where that evidence would otherwise be poisoned by the acts of the government are in fact admissible.  So an association with strict bylaws which govern harm created by any individual or corporation in that association, can easily use that evidence to make a determination that he cannot be in that association.  Sterling can sue, and he will, but ultimately he will simply be trying to leverage for more millions on the transfer of the franchise.

I think that I would pursue a much different line of attack than the NBA commissioner has recommended.  I would do what they did to the MN franchise and take all draft choices away for 10 years.   I would also allow a new rule to be implemented in the NBA that teams could sit their stars and starting lineup when playing the Clippers for a period of 10 years.  Once you set this course, the probation would be in full force and effect until an arms length sale was negotiated.  What works in this situation is with time instead of profiting, he would lose all his sponsors and fan base and hit him where he understands.....his pocketbook.   Although I like the justice of the NBA approach, they are going to actually reward his bad behavior without a second prong.

I don't care about the sports. What I care about is a person being able to have a private opinion, even if I don't like it.

We are verging very lose to the "thought police" sanctions. You don't need to commit a crime or break a law, you just need to think something we don't agree with and BAM, you're fucked!

 cheers cheers cheers Basketball Basketball Basketball  Well said!!  Thanks

/quote]

This is more than a person having a private opinion. He was trying to force her by threatening the relationship to also be a racist.

BS....he was protecting his ego.  He didn't care what she did in private, he didn't care if she slept with all of them....he was attempting to control what she did at the game. She was being paid well to be his trophy.  His money is and was his only magnet for a 20 year old...it wasn't his looks, personality or sexuality. You don't  hire a prostitute to give their attention to some one else while with you and on your dime. She accepted the prostitute arrangement.

Oh no! He wanted her to remove all the black people from her instagram. It wasn't just going to the games. He did not want her to be seen in public at all w/ any black people.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Go on........he did not want her to be seen or to post her instagram pictures of her friends because it would embarrass him and damage his ego. He wanted his imagine to be that of a stud that attracted the attention our a 20 year old.

All about his ego and not about an African American/ Mexican becoming a racist.



Last edited by Joanimaroni on 5/1/2014, 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni wrote:Go on........he did not want her to be seen or to post her instagram pictures of her friends because it would embarrass him and damage his ego. He wanted his imagine to be that of a stud that attracted the attention or of a hot 20 year old.

All about his ego and not about an African American/ Mexican becoming a racist.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

from the taped conversation...

girlfriend:  "If it's white people it's ok?  If it was Larry Byrd it would have made a difference?"

Sterling:  "why would you bring up Larry Byrd?  What has he got to do with it?  You can walk all night long with your sisters.  Or your family".

Seems to me that indicates he didn't want her to be hanging out publically with white celebrity basketball players either.  He wanted her to stay in the shadows.
But of course that part of the conversation is NOT what is ever heard on the news media because that interferes with the news media narrative.  lol

Is he a racist?  Yes.  Is racism the most significant thing we learn from listening to that conversation?  No.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Unprecedented stuff happening on this NBA presser right now

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum