NOT defending Sterling, but CAIN gets this right

http://www.caintv.com/nba-bans-donald-sterling-for-l

Now by all accounts, Sterling is a horrible owner and a horrible man. I have no interest in defending his character, nor could I come up with a defense if I wanted to.
But let's talk about the process here.
First, the things Sterling said were, he thought, being said in private to a person with whom he had a personal relationship. He did not know he was being recorded. It was not his intention to say them for public consumption. But they were leaked, and he is now being banned for the things he said - he thought - in private.
Are you OK with that? Would you want to pay a price like this for the worst thing you ever said when you thought you were speaking in private?
Second, if the league can take away a man's team because he says things that are "hurtful and offensive," who gets to decide what's hurtful and offensive? Are there rules that clearly define this? Or is it just whatever is the prevailing thinking of the moment?
Third, how thorough was this "investigation" that apparently took two days? And did the investigation include the question of Sterling's rights in being recorded without his knowledge, and having that recording given to the media?

I highly doubt those here want to debate this on this level. They merely want to get into a racist white rich guy masturbation contest.

Kayne West is proud. lol

To me, it is not even a rscial issue. It is a business decision. His words caused his business organization a loss of money. His continue association would cause continued losses. Why shouldn't they get rid of him?

His private words being exposed are a separate issue between him and his hooker girlfriend, and law enforcement.

QueenOfHearts wrote:To me, it is not even a rscial issue.  It is a business decision.  His words caused his business organization a loss of money.  His continue association would cause continued losses.  Why shouldn't they get rid of him?

His private words being exposed are a separate issue between him and his hooker girlfriend, and law enforcement.

Have they lost money? Can you prove that?

Were you on the side of the religious man on that program not long ago who said stuff about gays? The claim there too was loss of revenue. That didn't turn out accurate did it?

Either way, what is going on with the sport side of it is small potato's. The freedom to have a private opinion is a way bigger issue. So if people get caught up with he sport side of it and let this important liberty be eaten alive, it will be regrettable for our future as a freedom loving nation.

Sterling made a fool of himself.  Whether or not he had help is beside the point.  People who think the world revolves around them need to get their comeuppance.
He got his.

And I'm sure Mr. Cain can relate. (Mr. Cain...you really can't make this stuff up.)

QueenOfHearts wrote:To me, it is not even a rscial issue.  It is a business decision.  His words caused his business organization a loss of money.  His continue association would cause continued losses.  Why shouldn't they get rid of him?

His private words being exposed are a separate issue between him and his hooker girlfriend, and law enforcement.

Have they lost money? Can you prove that?

Were you on the side of the religious man on that program not long ago who said stuff about gays? The claim there too was loss of revenue. That didn't turn out accurate did it?

Either way, what is going on with the sport side of it is small potato's. The freedom to have a private opinion is a way bigger issue. So if people get caught up with he sport side of it and let this important liberty be eaten alive, it will be regrettable for our future as a freedom loving nation.

Corporate sponsors had already withdrawn their sponsorship, so that's a loss of money right there. When 80% of your client base is offended, it is not an giant leap to anticipate lost revenue. I am not familiar with the incident regard a religious man/gays.

We all do have a right to a private conversation. If that right is violated, then something can be done about the violation. If you bad-mouthed your boss, and a co-worker secretly recorded it and then broadcast it, you can do something about the violation of your privacy. However, you cannot expect your boss to forget what you said, and to refrain from acting on it because your privacy was violated.

QueenOfHearts wrote:

QueenOfHearts wrote:To me, it is not even a rscial issue.  It is a business decision.  His words caused his business organization a loss of money.  His continue association would cause continued losses.  Why shouldn't they get rid of him?

His private words being exposed are a separate issue between him and his hooker girlfriend, and law enforcement.

Have they lost money? Can you prove that?

Were you on the side of the religious man on that program not long ago who said stuff about gays? The claim there too was loss of revenue. That didn't turn out accurate did it?

Either way, what is going on with the sport side of it is small potato's. The freedom to have a private opinion is a way bigger issue. So if people get caught up with he sport side of it and let this important liberty be eaten alive, it will be regrettable for our future as a freedom loving nation.

Corporate sponsors had already withdrawn their sponsorship, so that's a loss of money right there.  When 80% of your client base is offended, it is not an giant leap to anticipate lost revenue.  I am not familiar with the incident regard a religious man/gays.

We all do have a right to a private conversation.  If that right is violated, then something can be done about the violation.  If you bad-mouthed your boss, and a co-worker secretly recorded it and then broadcast it, you can do something about the violation of your privacy.  However, you cannot expect your boss to forget what you said, and to refrain from acting on it because your privacy was violated.

I understand you are more interested in the corporate rights than the rights of the individual.

As I said on the other page, I dont care about the sports.

another thing, this ISNT corporate world. this is sports world. and in sports world we hear and see OUTRAGEOUS shit daily.

The race baiting and attacks on personal freedoms needs to end and the media needs to stop making a circus out of shit stories. It does nothing but divide us. All for BS.

and as I said on the other page, the man might be an ass, but he done a lot of good.

Most people are not intellectually honest in these circus trips. And that's exactly what this is. a hyped up circus trip about a 80 year old man not being PC enough while talking to his hooker gf in private about her sleeping around and bringing her lovers to the games apparently embarrassing him. I listened to the tape.

Now with all that said, I'm curious. Are you ok with this becoming common practice? The NSA is hoping so.

Despite Chrissy's best argument to defend this asshole racist sport team owner, what he is and what resulted from his exposure (legal or not) is the root of the story. An old white man billionaire who cheats on his wife with a trashy looking whore, is pissed about her associating with black people -- because, since so many know she's his mistress, it might reflect badly on him. And this the tape is we all heard. Let Sterling sue the cunt.

But regardless of how legal the escape was, the cat's out of the bag.

This arrogant old racist got what he deserved, and so did most of the members of his basketball team.

And nothing is sexier to me than watching a racist get boiled.

Nobody is defending him word....

http://www.ibtimes.com/herman-cain-press-conference-full-timeline-harassment-allegations-367050

Herman Cain Press Conference: A Full Timeline of the Harassment Allegations

(excerpt)

"...Monday, Nov. 7

A fourth woman, Sharon Bialek, comes out to accuse Cain of sexual harassment, and she is the first to give her name and to tell her story in detail. Bialek, a registered Republican who worked at the Education Foundation of the National Restaurant Association for nine years before losing her job in 1997, said she greatly admired Cain when she first met him at a restaurant association convention in Chicago in 1997. When she lost her job a month later, she asked Cain for help finding another job with the organization. She says they met for dinner in Washington, D.C., and he drove her to the National Restaurant Association headquarters before reaching up her skirt, trying to touch her genitalia, and pulling her head toward his crotch. She says that when she told him to stop, he said, You want a job, right?..."

---------------

There's your source, PeeDog.

Yep here we go SIN tactics -

Shift the blame or focus
Ignore the facts
Name call

You are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning

Unfortunately even racists have rights.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep here we go SIN tactics -

Shift the blame or focus
Ignore the facts
Name call

You are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning

I didn't call anyone names; I merely questioned the credibility of your source. What facts? I don't even know all the facts; neither do you. I see you have more than a passing acquaintance with SIN.

There's a valid argument for making it unlawful to record a private conversation and make it public without a person's consent.

But,  that would also make it unlawful to record and publicize this conversation without the person's consent...

from wiki...
On 26 March 2012 at the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with the outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama said that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense. He was heard telling Medvedev, "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space." Medvedev told the president in English, "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…" and President Obama continued his statement with, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Medvedev responded saying, again in English, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Of course many would prefer the law be written to make it legal to record democrats but not republicans.  Others would prefer it to be vice versa.

1. Sterling was taped because he wants to "archive" all his doings. His mistress stated that one of the things she did for Sterling was serve as his archivist. In simple terms, the man knows that everything he says at his office or home is taped.

2. There may indeed be room for a lawsuit against whoever leaked the tape. But the facts are, everyone heard the racist statements, so the damage was done whether it was legal or not.

3. The facts are, Sterling's a blatant racist and an old rich white man who makes money off of black athletes -- whom he obviously disdains because of their skin color.

Screw him and all like him. Get every racist on tape! Let'em all broil ...

Wordslinger wrote:1.  Sterling was taped because he wants to "archive"  all his doings.  His mistress stated that one of the things she did for Sterling was serve as his archivist.  In simple terms, the man knows that everything he says at his office or home is taped.

2.  There may indeed be room for a lawsuit against whoever leaked the tape.  But the facts are, everyone heard the racist statements, so the damage was done whether it was legal or not.

3.  The facts are, Sterling's a blatant racist and an old rich white man who makes money off of black athletes -- whom he obviously disdains because of their skin color.  

Screw him and all like him.  Get every racist on tape!  Let'em all broil ...

Now you're getting humorous. How is a racist different from yourself, a bigot?