What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

BouncyBall 2013/2014

Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
I'm assuming that the NBA has by-laws that say a 3/4 vote of owners can force the sale of a team.
Click to expand...

Yes but.....

The owners can force the sale of a team under certain specified conditions. The lawsuit will be about whether this situation fits those conditions.

btw, just because a suit might appear destined to lose doesn't necessarily mean it still won't be filed. If Sterling is really pizzed about what he views as hypocrisy, he might merely want to file a suit so that he can depose other owners and league officials, request emails, etc. After all, he's been like this for decades. Now, people suddenly are shocked, shocked I tell you, that there is gambling in Rick's cafe, so to speak? Really?

How many times do you think Sterling has made similar remarks in private to other owners and they nodded their heads right along with him?
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Old Pio said:
We're all justifiably repulsed by Sterling's antediluvian views on race. Can we extend a little of that moral preening to include a congressman who calls Clarence Thomas an "uncle Tom" who "doesn't like being black?" Or is his racism "different"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hat-clarence-thomas-is-an-uncle-tom//?print=1
Click to expand...
So here is his statement: "Well if you look at his decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the minority community, and the people I represent have a real issue with an African American not being sensitive to those issues."

So let's play the game of substitution. Say a white congressman (soon to be ex-congressman) said about Ruth Ginsberg: "Well if you look at her decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the white community, and the people I represent have a real issue with a Whitey not being sensitive to those issues."

Now, that would be fun to watch.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

SJHovey said:
...
But what he said, effectively, is "I don't like black people." He expressed an opinion, privately. No one was killed due to that opinion. No one lost their job, or was evicted from their apartment. It was just an old, bigoted man, expressing his opinion.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to more fully explain your position. Mine is that, while Donald Sterling expressed that opinion privately, he had no reasonable expectation that it would remain private. When you do things like buy an NBA franchise, you know or should know that you're giving up a good deal of privacy. This does not rise to the "big brother is watching" or some sort of constitutional issue that some (not you) have made it.

And I posed the question, are we really better off as a society when someone turns around and tattles, gossips or reports (however you want to describe it) that opinion? In my opinion, no. But others apparently differ.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's quite that simple. There are many gray areas that don't fit quite so neatly into "impending crime" or "no harm, no foul" categories as the examples we mentioned. If nobody ever tattled, gossiped, or reported, we'd have a really dull society, we'd be left to talk about the weather, and people would be free to knowingly misrepresent themselves to the public; I don't think that's good for society. If everything got tattled, gossiped, or reported, then we'd have no privacy and we'd be inundated with useless information. I don't think that's good for society either.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

SJHovey said:
So here is his statement: "Well if you look at his decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the minority community, and the people I represent have a real issue with an African American not being sensitive to those issues."

So let's play the game of substitution. Say a white congressman (soon to be ex-congressman) said about Ruth Ginsberg: "Well if you look at her decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the white community, and the people I represent have a real issue with a Whitey not being sensitive to those issues."

Now, that would be fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So the answer to my question is yes. When a jumped up black politician with snot on his vest from Mississippi, engages in scurrilous racist attacks on a prominent black American, it's "different." Got it.
 
Last edited:
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Sterling unquestionably has a right to make offensive statements that trumps our desire not to hear them, regardless of how repugnant those statements are. But under his contractual relationship with the NBA, he agreed to certain conditions and obligations, all of which were voluntarily accepted in exchange for substantial benefit. Those rights and obligations control the issue here. It will still be a legal circus, though, and interesting.

Oddly enough, the most repugnant speech often provides the best illustration of how important our free speech rights are, because it shows how quickly the majority can shut down a voice it does not want to hear. This might not be a pure first amendment case, but it certainly makes you think about the power of censorship.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

burd said:
Sterling unquestionably has a right to make offensive statements that trumps our desire not to hear them, regardless of how repugnant those statements are. But under his contractual relationship with the NBA, he agreed to certain conditions and obligations, all of which were voluntarily accepted in exchange for substantial benefit. Those rights and obligations control the issue here. It will still be a legal circus, though, and interesting.

Oddly enough, the most repugnant speech often provides the best illustration of how important our free speech rights are, because it shows how quickly the majority can shut down a voice it does not want to hear. This might not be a pure first amendment case, but it certainly makes you think about the power of censorship.
Click to expand...

Discrimination based on race is generally illegal. Bigotry is not. If it were, Louis Farrakhan would be serving a life sentence.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Old Pio said:
Discrimination based on race is generally illegal. Bigotry is not. If it were, Louis Farrakhan would be serving a life sentence.
Click to expand...

and grandmama would have been fired from the Knicks.

edit: and who is it that's wearing the black supremacist 5% chain? Was that Jay-Z?
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

I see this thread has been derailed. Good job, USCHO!

Can I start posting about Roboshark or nachos now?
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Jon said:
I see this thread has been derailed. Good job, USCHO!

Can I start posting about Roboshark or nachos now?
Click to expand...

No, only stories about Congressmen, that make no mention whatsoever of basketball or any sports for that matter, are allowed.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Jon said:
I see this thread has been derailed. Good job, USCHO!

Can I start posting about Roboshark or nachos now?
Click to expand...

It's a thread about basketball...does anyone really care if it gets derailed :)
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

MaizeRage said:
For a male his age, it would be far, far more unlikely if he didn't have prostate cancer. Also extremely likely he dies before the disease kills him.
Click to expand...

That was my thought too. It kills a lot of men, but he may have been dealing with this successfully for many many years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top