T1B

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:31 pm**

88 wrote:You are confused about freedom of speech, which is a right to say anything you want without fear of government action, and the potential consequences that flow from exercising that freedom, which might be that others in society refuse to play ball with you anymore.

Well you can't say ANYTHING. There are iner alia solicitation and defamation laws.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:55 pm**

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

It's a joke mv, one that befits your usual mindset. As well, I'm not espousing telling people what to say either, but you already know that, as you're being deliberately obtuse. Now then, point out where in that contract spouting racial epithets is okay. I'll wait.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:59 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: Now then, point out where in that contract spouting racial epithets is okay. I'll wait.

You're assbackwards as usual.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:05 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: It's a joke mv

Maybe DS was joking too.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:11 pm**

Jay,
Do you now see why I rarely actually engage, for more than a sentence or two, with ofailurecal? Call him a racist, remind him how stupid it is to be a Mexican racist then tease him for fucking black cock and move on.

You can thank me later.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:12 pm**

Gotta go with the T1B Masses here.

No one put a gun to Sterlings head when he agreed to the Constitution of the NBA. An agreement that gives the commissioner a ton of leeway to levy fines and suspensions.

Regardless of the Commissioner's actions, the other owners can vote to abolish a franchise, which would leave Sterling no choice but to sell, or take a half-billion dollar bath.

Bottom line -- don't rock the boat in a billionaires' club.

Considering the outrage of fans and players, Sterling's conduct was clearly detrimental to the league.

On the other side of the coin, dude got hosed due to a leaked private conversation, but welcome to the brave new world, where everybody makes your business their business, and has the technology in their pocket to make it everybody's business.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:22 pm**

Dinsdale wrote: On the other side of the coin, dude got hosed due to a leaked private conversation, but welcome to the brave new world, where everybody makes your business their business, and has the technology in their pocket to make it everybody's business.

People have always made other people's biz their biz. As you point out, the only difference now is you got to believe a skank when she is toting slam dunk[/B Grif] proof and nowdays that is as easy as ever.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:30 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Regardless of the Commissioner's actions, the other owners can vote to abolish a franchise, which would leave Sterling no choice but to sell, or take a half-billion dollar bath.

Not on a whim they can't.

TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP
The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner
may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of
Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the
following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the
Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the
Association.

(b) Transfer or attempt to transfer a Membership or an
interest in a Member without complying with the provisions of Article

(c) Fail to pay any dues or other indebtedness owing to
the Association within thirty (30) days after Written Notice from the
Commissioner of default in such payment.

(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to
the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a
way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.

(e) Wager or countenance wagering by its officers or
employees on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the
Association participates.

(f) Willfully permit open betting, pool selling, or any
other form of gambling upon any premises owned, leased, or otherwise
controlled by the Member or an Owner, except, subject to Article 8(a),
for gambling activities that are lawful in the applicable jurisdiction and
do not involve in any way, directly or indirectly, gambling with respect
to any aspect of the Association’s games, events, property, players, or
other personnel.

(g) Offer, agree, conspire, or attempt to lose or control
the score of any game participated in by a Team operated by a Member
of the Association, or fail to suspend immediately any officer or any
Player or other employee of the Member who shall be found guilty, in a
court of law or in any hearing sanctioned by this Constitution and By-
Laws, of offering, agreeing, conspiring, or attempting to lose or control
the score of any such game or of being interested in any pool or wager
on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the
Association participates.

(h) Disband its Team during the Season, dissolve its
business, or cease its operation.

(i) Willfully fail to present its Team at the time and
place it is scheduled to play in an Exhibition, Regular Season, or
Playoff Game.

(j) Willfully misrepresent any material fact contained in
its application for Membership in the Association.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:36 pm**

mvscal wrote:You're assbackwards as usual.

No, you're avoiding my question and validating what Moving Sale just said. Dinsdale also concurred with this, so I ask you mv, show us where in that contract that it was acceptable for Sterling to express and endorse racist views. Did Sterling get screwed...yep. Hoist on his own petard. So stop flailing and answer a simple and honest question.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:49 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Did Sterling get screwed...yep. Hoist on his own petard.

[dins] It's hoisted. [/dins]

That being said, you can't have it both ways. Being hoisted by your own petard is all on the person farting. He screwed himself. The skank did what skanks do. Keep them in the outer inner circle not the inner inner circle. And for God's sake know when and how to cut ties with them.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:52 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Regardless of the Commissioner's actions, the other owners can vote to abolish a franchise, which would leave Sterling no choice but to sell, or take a half-billion dollar bath.

Not on a whim they can't.

TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP...

Which is the slippery slope here, since the morals-clause-detrimental-conduct-thingy, according to the Constitution, applies to players, and isn't mentioned specifically to apply to owners/Members.

So if Sterling wants to go to court, the fun might begin -- how much dirt does Sterling have on Stern/Silver? It's not like the Association has exactly been run on the up-and-up the last 30 years.

Whether he's legally right or wrong, it's probably moot, since all the sponsors are pulling the plug, and free agents won't sign/re-sign, and certain players could possibly file retirement papers as a ploy, rendering the team worthless.

So right or wrong, the rest of the league and the sponsors and players hold all the cards here, and a half-bil is more important to Sterling than being right. Hell, the guy didn't even make an attempt at winning, until a savvy GM came along and convinced him he'd make more money if they were a winning team, which came to fruition. Of course, being the POS he is, after that goal was met, Sterling didn't want to pay the GM who made it all happen (so a certain GM-less U&L team lined his pockets and scooped him right up, reversing their recent fortunes).

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:56 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:And for God's sake know when and how to cut ties with them.

This is why you don't pay 'em. You pump 'em and dump 'em, or bang 'em and clang 'em. Then you kick 'em to the curb and never talk to them again. And for fuck's sake don't give them any of your money.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:03 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Gotta go with the T1B Masses here.

No one put a gun to Sterlings head when he agreed to the Constitution of the NBA. An agreement that gives the commissioner a ton of leeway to levy fines and suspensions.

Regardless of the Commissioner's actions, the other owners can vote to abolish a franchise, which would leave Sterling no choice but to sell, or take a half-billion dollar bath.

Bottom line -- don't rock the boat in a billionaires' club.

Considering the outrage of fans and players, Sterling's conduct was clearly detrimental to the league.

On the other side of the coin, dude got hosed due to a leaked private conversation, but welcome to the brave new world, where everybody makes your business their business, and has the technology in their pocket to make it everybody's business.

This is all very true. My biggest issue with all of this is in rushing to wear his big boy commissioner pants; Silver has drawn a distinct line in the sand that the NBA deems the worst thing you can possibly be is a racist. One of the head coaches in the playoffs was arrested and pled guilty to domestic abuse, was accused of it again in divorce proceedings, and was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The person who is speaking on behalf of the NBPA was accused of molesting underage girls on more than one occasion, had the school that he founded accused of misusing AmeriCorps funds, and is accused of being a slumlord whose properties have been cited for numerous violations. One of their biggest stars was accused of raping a girl in Colorado, numerous players have been caught and/or accused of using drugs, players having multiple children with multiple partners and so on.

Some of the activities above are illegal, some are not. But with Silver’s actions, he is saying that racism is worse than all of the others. That’s a mighty slippery slope he just decided to go down.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:07 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:And for God's sake know when and how to cut ties with them.
This is why you don't pay 'em. You pump 'em and dump 'em, or bang 'em and clang 'em. Then you kick 'em to the curb and never talk to them again. And for fuck's sake don't give them any of your money.

And most important of all -- NEVER buy them a glass of wine with dinner.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:09 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote:I ask you mv, show us where in that contract that it was acceptable for Sterling to express and endorse racist views.

That's why I said you're assbackwards, idiot. It's up to you to show me where in the NBA constitution and by laws it is unacceptable for Sterling to privately admonish his girlfriend for bringing her black friends to the games.

I'm sure Sterling has a few pipe hitting Members of the Tribe on retainer who can and probably will hand this commissioner his ass if he really tries to push this suspension and forced sale.

IMO, this is all a puppet show for the perpetually knicker-twisted and easily distracted and will be quietly shelved once these vapid halfwits have moved on to the latest outrage du jour.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:09 pm**

And yes, Killian, a slumlord calling out a fellow slumlord is one of the better parts of this whole... entirely entertaining debacle.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:11 pm**

mvscal wrote:
I'm sure Sterling has a few pipe hitting Members of the Tribe on retainer who can and probably will hand this commissioner his ass if he really tries to push this suspension and forced sale.

You do realize that the NBA is pretty much entirely run by MoTs, right?

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:15 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote: This is why you don't pay 'em. You pump 'em and dump 'em, or bang 'em and clang 'em. Then you kick 'em to the curb and never talk to them again. And for fuck's sake don't give them any of your money.

If you have a $billion$ or two and can keep churning them out maybe. When you have less than an infinite amount you have to employ different strategies at times. Ego massaging takes more time and is an exhausting process, but the long term results are far superior.

But the No1 rule is keep the house hag in check, which appears to be DS's biggest problem.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:18 pm**

Dins,
Anytime you bring up something as being a slippery slope you have KYOA because it's a fallacy. You understand that right?

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:23 pm**

Dinsdale wrote: And most important of all -- NEVER buy them a glass of wine with dinner.

Even better.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:25 pm**

Killian wrote:The person who is speaking on behalf of the NBPA was accused of molesting underage girls on more than one occasion, had the school that he founded accused of misusing AmeriCorps funds, and is accused of being a slumlord whose properties have been cited for numerous violations

Kevin Johnson, aka Michelle Rhee's husband?

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:40 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
mvscal wrote:
I'm sure Sterling has a few pipe hitting Members of the Tribe on retainer who can and probably will hand this commissioner his ass if he really tries to push this suspension and forced sale.

You do realize that the NBA is pretty much entirely run by MoTs, right?

Duh...

I'm sure they'll all get together for a schvitz after cutting each others throats in court.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:51 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:Dins,
Anytime you bring up something as being a slippery slope

It's not a "fallacy" in every instance, although in this instance, I'll cop to a poor choice of words.

The wording of the NBA Constitution doesn't necessarily provide for owners/"members", it only specifically mentions players, so there's been a bit of "creative interpretation" applied, which may or may not give Sterling a leg to stand on...

which as I mentioned, is moot without sponsors or fans or players. The Free Market would have sorted this out with or without Silver's actions.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:13 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
mvscal wrote:
I'm sure Sterling has a few pipe hitting Members of the Tribe on retainer who can and probably will hand this commissioner his ass if he really tries to push this suspension and forced sale.

You do realize that the NBA is pretty much entirely run by MoTs, right?

Yeah, but 75% of the league is made up of the Modaca Tribe.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:14 pm**

Now, the talk is of Oprah buying the team.

So one dude has to sell it because he's a racist, and the acceptable buyer is a... overt, devout racist.

Strange world we live in.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:15 pm**

mvscal wrote:That's why I said you're assbackwards, idiot. It's up to you to show me where in the NBA constitution and by laws it is unacceptable for Sterling to privately admonish his girlfriend for bringing her black friends to the games.

Okay, since you like to back peddle away from direct questions, this one is pretty simple. I don't have to show you where the law is, the commissioner and the other owners have. Now Sterling is certainly free to sue over this, hell, he may even win. But if there were not an issue regarding Sterling and his comments, regardless of the context they were said, he wouldn't be in trouble. He is and that reflects the fact that he fucked up, private comments or no. He said it, he owns it. I understand that he is a sort of "brother in arms in racism" for you, so this is why you're cheering for him. You can deny that all you want, your thousand plus racial bombs written over time speak for you.

IMO, this is all a puppet show for the perpetually knicker-twisted and easily distracted and will be quietly shelved once these vapid halfwits have moved on to the latest outrage du jour.

Nice to see you channeling your inner Moving Sale, though I do agree with the puppet show sentiment. It'll all be forgotten soon. In the meantime mv, own up to your bias and chill out. Let this bullshit play out, we'll see who's right or wrong.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:16 pm**

Sirfindafold wrote:
Yeah, but 75% of the league is made up of the Modaca Tribe.

Not true -- some are Getthtados and Goinups.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:25 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: In the meantime mv, own up to your bias and chill out. Let this bullshit play out, we'll see who's right or wrong.

My bias is against politically correct fascists who think they are justified in using economic violence to inflict their worldview on the public.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Outrage should be reserved for genuine acts of discrimination not thought crime. Punishing people for holding an unpopular opinion is an extremely disturbing and dangerous trend. It is simply not compatible with a free society.

It's unfortunate that you, among others, lack the wit to understand that.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:21 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Jay in Phoenix wrote: In the meantime mv, own up to your bias and chill out. Let this bullshit play out, we'll see who's right or wrong.
My bias is against politically correct fascists who think they are justified in using economic violence to inflict their worldview on the public.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Outrage should be reserved for genuine acts of discrimination not thought crime. Punishing people for holding an unpopular opinion is an extremely disturbing and dangerous trend. It is simply not compatible with a free society.

It's unfortunate that you, among others, lack the wit to understand that.

Wrong again mv. I do understand that and have credited you for that on several occasions, just as I have on occasion attributed you cultural bias being misinterpreted as racial bias. That being said, you have more often than not used derogatory terms, racial epithets and "N"-bombs ad infinitum. This underlies your racism, especially directed against blacks, which goes beyond cultural stereotypes.

In this instance, the matter in hand can be construed as thought crime, which should not be punished. But we aren't talking about a court of law here or constitutional rights of free speech, this is about employer/employee rules of conduct. Once you get that through your stubborn ego, maybe you'll think more "freely".

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:24 pm**

mvscal wrote:
My bias is against politically correct fascists who think they are justified in using economic violence to inflict their worldview on the public.

Cry me a river Nancy. It's called capitalism and democracy. Pretty rich you calling it fascism.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:29 pm**

mvscal wrote:Punishing people for holding an unpopular opinion is an extremely disturbing and dangerous trend. It is simply not compatible with a free society.

Are you arguing that private organizations should not be legally able to impose more restrictions (allow less freedom) on its members than non-members enjoy as citizens?

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:34 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote:But we aren't talking about a court of law here or constitutional rights of free speech, this is about employer/employee rules of conduct.

Franchisor/Franchisee. It's a shame you blew it too because that was not a half bad post.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:00 pm**

Mv and killian have it right.

Expressing a private opinion about something is now worse than DUIs/serial bastard production/various other shit behavior?

Really?

If this guy can be railroaded over this for many millions of dollars over something which really is absolutely meaningless, while others get away with a slap on the wrist for truely damaging behavior, we really do live in one broke dick society. And good point by Dins about Oprah the uber-racist.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:18 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Jay in Phoenix wrote:But we aren't talking about a court of law here or constitutional rights of free speech, this is about employer/employee rules of conduct.
Franchisor/Franchisee. It's a shame you blew it too because that was not a half bad post.

Apples and oranges MS. The point remains the same.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:27 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote:In this instance, the matter in hand can be construed as thought crime, which should not be punished.

Yet you fully condone the punishment

But we aren't talking about a court of law here or constitutional rights of free speech, this is about employer/employee rules of conduct. Once you get that through your stubborn ego, maybe you'll think more "freely".

This isn't about my ego. It's about your bovine stupidity. You keep saying that over and over again as if it is supposed to have some relevance to the notion of free speech. I explicitly stated that this isn't about the 1st amendment, so stop trying to cast it in 1st amendment terms.

In all practical reality, it makes not one iota of difference if your freedom of speech is denied by the government or by your employer. The simple freedom to have your own personal opinion on a topic is lost. When real damage is being inflicted for nothing more than not holding a politically correct opinion, our "free" country is circling the drain. You're sliding down the chute and too dumb to know it.

1984 was intended as a cautionary tale not an instruction manual.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:36 pm**

mvscal wrote:In all practical reality, it makes not one iota of difference if your freedom of speech is denied by the government or by your employer. The simple freedom to have your own personal opinion on a topic is lost. When real damage is being inflicted for nothing more than not holding a politically correct opinion, our "free" country is circling the drain. You're sliding down the chute and too dumb to know it.

1984 was intended as a cautionary tale not an instruction manual.

Yes it was. My condoning the punishment only represents my opinion that an employer has the right to run his business as he sees fit, or as MS put it, as a franchise/franchiser. It's a code of conduct issue, not freedom of speech, as I've said repeatedly. Most people on this thread understand this, it is only you and a couple of others that are confusing the matter.

By the way, the name calling and "dumb" references are a province of someone who has already lost the argument and have no valid point to offer.

You can bail anytime.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:59 pm**

mvscal wrote: In all practical reality, it makes not one iota of difference if your freedom of speech is denied by the government or by your employer. The simple freedom to have your own personal opinion on a topic is lost.

Become your own boss then asshat. Good gawd you are a whining fucking vagina. Not to mention a racist fuck.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 12:43 am**

You forgot balck cock aficionado.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 12:54 am**

smackaholic wrote:You forgot balck cock aficionado.

You are the one sucking his balls. You would know better than I if he has a black cock in his ass.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 1:12 am**

mvscal wrote:The simple freedom to have your own personal opinion on a topic is lost.

Sterling has freedom to express his opinion.
The NBA has freedom to make personnel decisions that protect their business.
Freedom for all. Let the free market sort it out.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Why do you hate America?

How did it take this long for TVO to reference black cock?

T1B

D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank

Re: D Sterling and his skank