• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Sterling's punishment too much? [W:359]

Was the punishment too harsh?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 60.2%

  • No

    Votes: 37 39.8%
  • Total voters
    93
TurtleDude said:
what exactly was his words going to do to cost the NBA money? I am curious. If you are a basketball fan would this matter? Marge Schott (I am familiar with this since when I was in private practice, my firm represented one of the minority owners) made some stupid comments and despite the hysterical overreaction by Bud Selig (who apparently had a hard on for German-Catholic Schott), her silliness did not cost the NL money
Click to expand...

I am not a basketball fan so take this for what it is worth. There was a large outcry among people over what he said. This can and probably will to some extent affect such things as TV viewership, attendance, sponsorships, advertising revenue, and so on. Those last 2 are particularly important.
 
APACHERAT said:
What financial damage ? Were blacks and prostitutes going to boycott the NBA ?

I'm sure the race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have organized a boycott, they always do.

What did you think of President Obama interjecting his thoughts into the issue over the past weekend ? POTUS isn't suppose to do things like that.

Remember when Nixon screwed up ?
Click to expand...

Stolen from above post: Sponsors ponder deals with Los Angeles Clippers over Donald Sterling's purported racist comments - ESPN Los Angeles
 
Gipper said:
I'm hopping that this becomes a tipping point where we can tell black people to shut up and get over it. Corporate America doesn't need their money that much.

I put up with Barkley's racist ass without whining. They can do the same.
Click to expand...

And yet you made this thread...

Maybe we should tell you to shut up and get over it, the NBA can do as they choose.
 
APACHERAT said:
I smell Sharpton and Jackson, they do things like that.
Click to expand...

A thread regarding racial issues just isn't a thread regarding racial issues without the usual Al Sharpton hateboner on which to hang our hats.
 
APACHERAT said:
I smell Sharpton and Jackson, they do things like that.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the guys who own and operate companies like Carmax and State Farm totally give two ****s what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (whose net worth are a fraction of theirs) think.
 
Redress said:
And yet you made this thread...

Maybe we should tell you to shut up and get over it, the NBA can do as they choose.
Click to expand...

the only limit is that contained in the terms of the contract. I haven't read the contract but I expect Stirling has some really good attorneys and this could get messy

I also find this reaction to be some self exorcism on the part of other owners who are falling over each other to kiss the ring of the PC god. Lots of those owners are equally odious assholes i suspect who want to pile on in order to divert attention away from some of their own issues
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yes, because the guys who own and operate companies like Carmax and State Farm totally give two ****s what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (whose net worth are a fraction of theirs) think.
Click to expand...
Jackson was good at extorting millions from wealthy corporations like Coca Cola
 
Redress said:
And yet you made this thread...

Maybe we should tell you to shut up and get over it, the NBA can do as they choose.
Click to expand...

The NBA can do what it chooses, but in this case they didn't. They buckled to a loudmouth minority population. They, and everyone else, needs to effectively tell them to go to hell.
 
American said:
I don't like his racist remarks, but it looks like the leftwing thought-nazis won out again. Sieg Heil!!! Sieg Heil!! Let's round up the haters and shoot them all, throw them in gas chambers and them cook them in ovens. What's next, loyality oaths? Let's just become the USSR we destroyed and turn each other in to the Fatherland. Stupid ****s.
Click to expand...

Come on...don't you remember the words of GW Bush? "You are either with us or with the terrorists." He started this.

 
Gipper said:
The NBA can do what it chooses, but in this case they didn't. They buckled to a loudmouth minority population. They, and everyone else, needs to effectively tell them to go to hell.
Click to expand...

What "minority population"?
 
TurtleDude said:
the only limit is that contained in the terms of the contract. I haven't read the contract but I expect Stirling has some really good attorneys and this could get messy

I also find this reaction to be some self exorcism on the part of other owners who are falling over each other to kiss the ring of the PC god. Lots of those owners are equally odious assholes i suspect who want to pile on in order to divert attention away from some of their own issues
Click to expand...

From what I've read of the NBA Constitution is that the ban itself would most likely be upheld since it gives the Commissioner pretty broad powers. However, if the owners were to vote to revoke ownership then Sterling has a few arguments. First, the team is in good financial standing so that is not a reason to take the team away. Second, the team management has not shown racism, although there was a suit against Sterling by someone within the organization for it, but outside of that the team is clean. Third, there is no morals clause. I guess the League hasn't found it necessary to update that part of the Constitution, although I'd imagine they will think about it now.
 
soccerboy22 said:
From what I've read of the NBA Constitution is that the ban itself would most likely be upheld since it gives the Commissioner pretty broad powers. However, if the owners were to vote to revoke ownership then Sterling has a few arguments. First, the team is in good financial standing so that is not a reason to take the team away. Second, the team management has not shown racism, although there was a suit against Sterling by someone within the organization for it, but outside of that the team is clean. Third, there is no morals clause. I guess the League hasn't found it necessary to update that part of the Constitution, although I'd imagine they will think about it now.
Click to expand...

I think the commissioner would have a hard time preventing Sterling from buying a ticket and watching say a NY Knicks game in NYC. Pete Rose was banned from baseball but he can go as any box holder's guest. SO if someone has a box, its going to be hard to prevent him from inviting Sterling.

that new commissioner looks like a piss ant-just saying………..
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the commissioner would have a hard time preventing Sterling from buying a ticket and watching say a NY Knicks game in NYC. Pete Rose was banned from baseball but he can go as any box holder's guest. SO if someone has a box, its going to be hard to prevent him from inviting Sterling.

that new commissioner looks like a piss ant-just saying………..
Click to expand...

It is also possible in a year or two they reduce the ban or the scope of the ban.
 
soccerboy22 said:
It is also possible in a year or two they reduce the ban or the scope of the ban.
Click to expand...

either voluntarily or after he files a huge counter law suit against them and drags some of the other owners and players' dirty laundry into the public
 
grip said:
This is leading down a very slippery slope, where we allow Media outrage to guide our reactions, in a legal sense, towards the expression of someones opinion. Once you start limiting what people can say, you're only one step away from limiting ALL freedoms based on standards not rooted in the law. Mob rule is an appeal to emotions of common denominators, like anger, self righteousness and revenge, not reason, tolerance and justice.
Click to expand...

This implies there was no genuine outrage. Is that what you think?

Expressing an opinion is not what he did. He expressed contempt for people based on their ethnicity. When you are a person that has authority and control over others that kind of bigotry matters. Your "opinion" can then actively harm others.
 
TurtleDude said:
the only limit is that contained in the terms of the contract. I haven't read the contract but I expect Stirling has some really good attorneys and this could get messy
Click to expand...

Correct, and I made that clarification in my first post on the topic.

I also find this reaction to be some self exorcism on the part of other owners who are falling over each other to kiss the ring of the PC god. Lots of those owners are equally odious assholes i suspect who want to pile on in order to divert attention away from some of their own issues
Click to expand...

It is not PC to expect people to not act like douches and to react negatively when they do.
 
Gipper said:
The NBA can do what it chooses, but in this case they didn't. They buckled to a loudmouth minority population. They, and everyone else, needs to effectively tell them to go to hell.
Click to expand...

You say they can do as they choose. They did. Then you accuse them of buckling to pressure. Could you pick an argument and then stick with it? If they choose to buckle to pressure, that is still their choice. Almost any business will "buckle to pressure" from their customers.
 
At least the team is honoring him.

Clippers Retire Donald Sterling Jersey | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

700.hq.jpg
 
Gipper said:
For his racist comments caught on tape, Clippers owner Donald Sterling recently had this ruling put on him by NBA commissioner Adam Silver:

$2.5M fine (maximum allowed in by-laws)
Lifetime ban from NBA games
Lifetime ban from NBA function
Zero access to facilities during Clippers games and practices
Urging by the BoD to owners for forced divestiture of ownership



Was the hammer too great, or spot on?

Also to take into consideration:

He spoke these words on his private property
He broke no actual laws
His girlfriend broke the law by recording him without his knowledge
Click to expand...

There weren't enough options in the poll.

It's their company if they wanted to do that to somebody for cutting their hair out wouldn't matter what I thought.
 
opendebate said:
This implies there was no genuine outrage. Is that what you think?

Expressing an opinion is not what he did. He expressed contempt for people based on their ethnicity. When you are a person that has authority and control over others that kind of bigotry matters. Your "opinion" can then actively harm others.
Click to expand...

No he didn't, he expressed his contempt of some ethnic cultures or cultural customs. Sterling even mentioned his own culture and called it "my culture."

In some parts of the world there's a cultural custom of female circumcision, aka Female Genital Mutilation. If one doesn't approve of that cultural custom does it make one a racist ? If one is expressing his contempt of the cultural custom of female genital mutilation in private in his own home and he's recorded and it's released to the public, do those who practice that culture have the right to demand punishment for not accepting their culture ?

Not to many years ago many Americans weren't accepting the cultural custom of some ethnic groups who were wiping their butts and throwing the toilet paper on the floor. And there was the PC Police who would call those who didn't except that culture as racist.
 
APACHERAT said:
..........
Click to expand...

No he didn't, he expressed his contempt of some ethnic cultures or cultural customs. Sterling even mentioned his own culture and called it "my culture."
Click to expand...
Any time you group an entire race of people together and claim that they are all the same you're being a racist.
 
APACHERAT said:
No he didn't, he expressed his contempt of some ethnic cultures or cultural customs. Sterling even mentioned his own culture and called it "my culture."

In some parts of the world there's a cultural custom of female circumcision, aka Female Genital Mutilation. If one doesn't approve of that cultural custom does it make one a racist ? If one is expressing his contempt of the cultural custom of female genital mutilation in private in his own home and he's recorded and it's released to the public, do those who practice that culture have the right to demand punishment for not accepting their culture ?

Not to many years ago many Americans weren't accepting the cultural custom of some ethnic groups who were wiping their butts and throwing the toilet paper on the floor. And there was the PC Police who would call those who didn't except that culture as racist.
Click to expand...

Ya, it's disgusting on all fronts.

His comments were disgusting.

The woman who recorded and released private conversations is disgusting.

The reaction, ruining a mans livelihood based on his personal private beliefs is disgusting.

So, where do we go from here? Should we black list people from employment based on private conversations, the NSA is doing their part in logging those conversations, so, let's make sure that anyone expressing any opinion that might offend anyone has their lives ruined?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom