T1B

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: You want to play with fire, you get burned. That's what Sterling did by hooking up with a gold-digger 50 years younger than him.

Any reasonable person would have outed DS given this same situation. Her age and 'profession' are not relevant. The fire he was playing with was his racist views. It had nothing to do with who he was talking to at the time.

Man, most of you need to STFU and crack a newspaper. There's a reason she did what she did, and it has nothing to do with racism or Magic Johnson or any of the other stupid shit you dweebs are spewing.

It had to do with getting him to get his wife to drop her lawsuit, tards.

You'all's are obviously tragically uninformed.

Moving Sale wrote:The fire he was playing with was his racist views. It had nothing to do with who he was talking to at the time.

It was both.

If you don't think an 80 year old billionaire cheating on his wife with a 30 year old skank isn't playing with fire, you're a moron. This is a lesson on, be careful who you choose to let into your life. This woman was clearly waiting for a reason to pounce, and the racial blast was what she locked her sites on. Or what, did you think she was with him for his charm and good looks?

Dinsdale wrote: There's a reason she did what she did, and it has nothing to do with racism or Magic Johnson or any of the other stupid shit you dweebs are spewing.

If you could read you would see that I, at least, was not talking about her motives. I was talking about her moral responsibility to him once he started in on his racist rant. Once that happens she can out him for any reason, be it sloidarity with Magic or her own pocketbook. Anything else ditch digger?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: This woman was clearly waiting for a reason to pounce, and the racial blast was what she locked her sites on.

Because he didn't have her back. He could have handed her the 1.8 million to settle the lawsuit with the ex and fucked her in the ass that night instead of bitching at her about black people. I have seen nothing to suggest she was anything but loyal to him until he started to turn on her. There is nothing morally wrong with prostituting yourself the way she did.

Props to Kareem for not treating the gold digging slut like a hero....


The column by Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Time.com is the latest reaction...and what a take it was.

Here are some of the highlights:

• He wrote the whole country "has gotten a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from the newest popular sport of Extreme Finger Wagging. Not to mention the neck strain from Olympic tryouts for Morally Superior Head Shaking. All over the latest in a long line of rich white celebrities to come out of the racist closet."

• On the release of the audio tapes with Sterling's alleged comments: "The poor guy’s girlfriend (undoubtedly ex-girlfriend now) is on tape cajoling him into revealing his racism. Man, what a winding road she led him down to get all of that out. She was like a sexy nanny playing 'pin the fried chicken on the Sambo.' She blindfolded him and spun him around until he was just blathering all sorts of incoherent racist sound bites that had the news media peeing themselves with glee."

• Like other columnists and writers, Abdul-Jabbar pointed out that he's surprised there's so much shock about Sterling's comments: "Racists deserve to be paraded around the modern town square of the television screen so that the rest of us who believe in the American ideals of equality can be reminded that racism is still a disease that we haven’t yet licked. What bothers me about this whole Donald Sterling affair isn’t just his racism. I’m bothered that everyone acts as if it’s a huge surprise. ... He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing."

• Ultimately, he wrote, it's about something much bigger: "Make no mistake: Donald Sterling is the villain of this story. But he’s just a handmaiden to the bigger evil. In our quest for social justice, we shouldn’t lose sight that racism is the true enemy. He’s just another jerk with more money than brains."

Moving Sale wrote:He could have handed her the 1.8 million to settle the lawsuit with the ex

Not sure where you're getting this -- making it up as you go, I guess.

Sterling doesn't have an ex. He has a wife.

He DID hand her 1.8 mil, dumbass. And Mrs. Sterling was suing to get it back, accusing skank of embezzlement. All Sterling had to do was say "yeah, I gave her the money."

Glad I could help.

What's a bummer, is this is so far the best NBA playoff in many years, maybe ever, and one idiot with a big mouth managed to overshadow the great matchups in the first round.

Dinsdale wrote: Sterling doesn't have an ex. He has a wife.

He is parading around at games with his GF so while he may be legally married the old lady is his ex for these purposes.

He DID hand her 1.8 mil, dumbass.

And he could have handed her another 1.8 to make the suit go away. Sure the ex could have refiled, but that is a whole other can of worms.

And Mrs. Sterling was suing to get it back, accusing skank of embezzlement.

Then you can show me the part of her suit that uses the words “embezzlement” or even “embezzle” right? Take your time ditch digger.

All Sterling had to do was say "yeah, I gave her the money."

No, the ex is alleging that he disposed of community property when he wasn’t supposed to. Which is why he would have to give the skank another 1.8 to make the first suit go away. Again this opens a bigger can of worms but that is another thread altogether.

Glad I could help.

You don’t need any help looking dumb. You are doing great on your own.

What's a bummer, is this is so far the best NBA playoff in many years, maybe ever, and one idiot with a big mouth managed to overshadow the great matchups in the first round.

He has drawn more attention to the NBA and kept the NFL draft (substantially) out of the news for 4 days a week before it starts. Once again you are an idiot.

It was known for years that Sterling was an openly racist, whore-mongering dickbag.

Just now there is a huge uproar over it??


lol

Moving Sale wrote:I was talking about her moral responsibility to him once he started in on his racist rant.

Moral responsibility? To do what? Censor unpopular personal opinions? Is that where we're at as a society now?

Fascist goose stepper much?

Fascist? This has nothing to do with the government. Hyperbolic asshat much?

Sudden Sam wrote: So why isn't anyone pursuing the NAACP angle on this? Why are they not being brought to task for planning to honor the man?

If no one is pursuing the NAACP angle then how did you find out about it? Stupid fucking hick.

Moving Sale wrote:Fascist? This has nothing to do with the government.

I didn't say it did. It doesn't the fact that you are a goose stepping fascist.

Goober McTuber wrote:Bang, bang, Adam Silver’s hammer
Came down on Donald’s head
Bang, bang, Adam Silver’s hammer
Made sure that he bled.

Amazingly, that song is older than you.

mvscal wrote: I didn't say it did. It doesn't the fact that you are a goose stepping fascist.

So you have no facts to back up your statement and yet you are standing by it? Stupid fucking racist.

The facts are that you believe that there is a moral responsibility to censor and punish people for having unpopular personal opinions.

That makes you a fascist.

Learn how to read you stupid racist fuck. I said no such thing. I said she didn't have a moral responsibility to keep DS's secrets after he went off in her friends.

Moving Sale wrote:Learn how to read you stupid racist fuck. I said no such thing. I said she didn't have a moral responsibility to keep DS's secrets after he went off in her friends.

Is that what they call them now? "Friends"?

I thought they were called Johns.

Moving Sale wrote:Learn how to read you stupid racist fuck. I said no such thing. I said she didn't have a moral responsibility to keep DS's secrets after he went off in her friends.

This story is getting weirder by the second.

I am forever fat fingering the i-o combo when not on a reg keyboard. Makes for some pretty funny posts though.

Sirfindafold wrote:
Is that what they call them now? "Friends"?

I thought they were called Johns.

Yuck it up tardling but I doubt Magic is fucking hoes these days given his past.

Moving Sale wrote:I am forever fat fingering the i-o combo when not on a reg keyboard. Makes for some pretty funny posts though.

It's a shame you aren't ever intentionally funny.

What do you call it hillbilly?

Moving Sale wrote:I am aware of no rule, written or unwritten, that says you cann't or shouldn't tell people when someone you are dating acts like a vile racist bully. He forfetied any right he may have had to 'keep' her quiet when he went off on her friends for no reason. She had their back and had no reason, at that point, to have his. She is almost blamless, ethically and morally, in this whole fiasco.

To your point, there is validity, though shaded by some gray. These two, if you are to believe what is being reported, are friends. According to the latest news, Stiviano's lawyer is claiming that she never released the tapes, that it was a third party. Nehoray, her lawyer, told the Times that Stiviano and Sterling didn't have a romantic relationship. "It's nothing like it's been portrayed," the lawyer said. "She's not the type of person everyone says."

Yeah, right. Yet these tapes did get released so she is complicit. Now of course it is her right to do so, not saying it isn't, but in light the lavish gifts, the money and the "friendship", there is a betrayal. Don't read me wrong, he IS the bad guy in this, but friends, if the friendship is real as she and her mouthpiece claim, keep secrets close to the vest. Why else would she spill the racist owners spew? To see that he sees the light? To amend his hateful ways?

Nope, it's all about a payday. It is also about, as Dins has said, getting rid of a lawsuit, which in and of itself, is a payday if she wins, as she'll get to keep her gifts. The lawsuit claims, Stiviano, 31, met Sterling, 80, at the 2010 Super Bowl. It accuses Stiviano of engaging "in conduct designed to target, befriend, seduce, and then entice, cajole, borrow from, cheat and/or receive as gifts transfers of wealth from wealthy older men whom she targets for such purpose."

Stiviano's attorney has filed documents to dismiss many of the accusations and denies that she took advantage of Sterling, describing him as having an "iron will" and being one of the world's shrewdest businessmen. Says her lawyer, "She was a hard-working waitress and did volunteer work helping crime victims before becoming an "archivist" for Sterling."

'She had no association with any rich people before this," he said.

Once again, yeah right.

MS, you say you feel empathy for her but I don't. She accepted gifts and money, a lot of it, willingly. If she is so very innocent here, if she wasn't sleeping with the fat old prune, she wouldn't be taking the wealth. Nor, would there be a lawsuit from Mrs. Sterling. No, she is just as complicit of bad judgement and at least borderline prostitution. She will also continue to get paid from this sleazy story.

You can call it "hooking up" and not be incorrect, but I can call it hooking and that can be correct. That it didn't happen on a street corner or a brothel, doesn't lessen what it is. But if the players involved, with the exception of the wife, are fine with it, so be it. Let's just not engage in this holier-than-thou bullshit from her lawyer.

It's a train wreck all right, and we are all being sucked right into it.

Moving Sale wrote:Learn how to read you stupid racist fuck. I said no such thing.

Do you believe the actions the NBA took against Sterling are appropriate?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

88 wrote:I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue at all.

Then you are either an idiot or a liar.

When thoughts and opinions are punished, there is no such thing as freedom of speech. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the punishment originates with the government. The end result is a coerced conformity of thought and corresponding loss of freedom which would have appalled the Founders.

88 wrote:But the freedom of speech does not also include a freedom to be insulated from the consequences of that speech insofar as members of the public and private business partners are concerned. If the individuals who set up the NBA agreed that its franchisees could not say such things, and that if they did, they would lose their franchise rights, that is fine with me. And the same holds true for the public. If certain members of the public, including advertisers, decide that they no longer want to do business with a dude that says the things that Sterling said, then so be it. That is their freedom too.

Bottom line: You have a right to express your thoughts in this country without the government abridging that right, particularly if what you have to say involves the government and what its policies and laws ought to be. But others also have the freedom to shun, boycott and otherwise ostracize you if they do not agree with what you say*.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This, is spot on. It is not so much a freedom of speech issue, as it is an issue of what an employer has the right to do regarding moral turpitude of an employee' and their contract. The employer, being the NBA, can contractually require a muzzle for any employee, in this case Sterling, if he is making what can and is perceived as a racist statement, which is especially egregious in light of the majority of players in the NBA being black. So they have the right to fine or fire as they see fit.

Yes, you have every right in this country to express your thoughts. But as 88 points out correctly, others have the freedom to shun, boycott and ostracize. If you sign a contact, you are bound by said contract. Period.

And another fascist moron (goose) steps out in his shiny new jackboots...

So mvscal, you don't believe in a moral turpitude clause in a business contract, especially in regard to racism?

mvscal wrote:When thoughts and opinions are punished, there is no such as freedom of speech. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the punishment originates with the government. The end result is a coerced conformity of thought and corresponding loss of freedom which would have appalled the Founders.

I'm sure those same founders were thinking about that concept when they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Of course, just to re-address mvscal's point, anyone has the right to say whatever they want to. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Freedom of speech is one of our single greatest rights. However...with that said, an employer has the right to mandate rules of employment as they see fit. YOU have the right not to work for them. If you sign a contract, you are bound by it.

What exactly is it about this concept are you struggling with?

mvscal wrote:And another fascist moron (goose) steps out in his shiny new jackboots...

So you want government to regulate code of conduct policies? Rights for employees but not employers? Freaking libtards.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Of course, just to re-address mvscal's point, anyone has the right to say whatever they want to. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Freedom of speech is one of our single greatest rights. However...with that said, an employer has the right to mandate rules of employment as they see fit. YOU have the right not to work for them. If you sign a contract, you are bound by it.

What exactly is it about this concept are you struggling with?

Oh, I'm not struggling at all. You, on the other hand, have completely lost the plot.

Freedom of speech is one of our single greatest rights.

Just so long as you are careful to express only the most politically correct thoughts and opinions lest you suffer loss of income and livelihood, right? There's your "great freedom" right there. Sorry, if I'm not so impressed with your notion of freedom.

Just so that you labor under no further misunderstanding, if you believe that employers are correct to punish those who privately express unpopular thoughts or opinions, you certainly do NOT believe in freedom of speech.

mvscal wrote:Just so long as you are careful to express only the most politically correct thoughts and opinions lest you suffer loss of income and livelihood, right? There's your "great freedom" right there. Sorry, if I'm not so impressed with your notion of freedom.

Just so that you labor under no further misunderstanding, if you believe that employers are correct to punish those who privately express unpopular thoughts or opinions, you certainly do NOT believe in freedom of speech.

You've got this wrong mv. I'm not saying any such thing. As I said before, and note this fact because it is key...if you agree with and sign a contract, you are bound by the stipulations of said contract. End of story. It doesn't make it right per se, it may not be fair and it may even be unconstitutional, in theory at least, but an employer can dictate policies to employees as they see fit. That is their right, just as it is the right to express yourself however you choose. The police state didn't intrude on Sterling and his privacy, his girlfriend did. If he didn't like it, he could have chosen not to own a predominantly black basketball team. His free will, his mistake.

He signed a contract with the NBA. He's bound to uphold it, regardless of Constitutional mandate. That's free enterprise, learn to deal with it.

I am not in the least bit confused. I'm not talking about the 1st Amendment. I am talking about freedom of speech in a broader, social context.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

mvscal wrote:Just so long as you are careful to express only the most politically correct thoughts and opinions lest you suffer loss of income and livelihood, right? There's your "great freedom" right there. Sorry, if I'm not so impressed with your notion of freedom.

Just so that you labor under no further misunderstanding, if you believe that employers are correct to punish those who privately express unpopular thoughts or opinions, you certainly do NOT believe in freedom of speech.

You've got this wrong mv. I'm not saying any such thing. As I said before, and note this fact because it is key...if you agree with and sign a contract, you are bound by the stipulations of said contract. End of story. It doesn't make it right per se, it may not be fair and it may even be unconstitutional, in theory at least, but an employer can dictate policies to employees as they see fit. That is their right, just as it is the right to express yourself however you choose. The police state didn't intrude on Sterling and his privacy, his girlfriend did. If he didn't like it, he could have chosen not to own a predominantly black basketball team. His free will, his mistake.

He signed a contract with the NBA. He's bound to uphold it, regardless of Constitutional mandate. That's free enterprise, learn to deal with it.

Feel free to check back in once you get a clue.

Start here:

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/media ... y-Laws.pdf

mvscal wrote:Feel free to check back in once you get a clue.

Already have one and have expressed it perfectly. Just because it doesn't within the confines of your racist overview, doesn't make it invalid.

Sieg heil Adolph, go stone some Jews while you're at it.

mvscal wrote:Start here:

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/media ... y-Laws.pdf

Care to be more specific, as by several articles contained therein simply back up what I said.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Sieg heil Adolph, go stone some Jews while you're at it.

Yeah, that's pretty funny except that I'm not the one running around telling other people what to say and what to think.