• 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!

Would you vote to take the Clippers from Donald Sterling?

Donald Sterling must sell his NBA team


  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
For the 5th time, I wouldn't vote to take away someone's personal property.

Personal property rights IMO trump an NBA contract.

That is all.

No, the "right" to own an NBA franchise is contingent on the terms of the ownership agreement. Sterling violated that agreement.
 
None of us know how we'd vote because we're not owners of a team. I assume this poll was a hypothetical one, unless we have NBA owners posting among us? I'm sure the others who said "no" also assume this to be a hypothetical poll.
Didn't you state earlier: "My opinion is that personal property trumps NBA contracts. Simple as that." That doesn't sound hypothetical to me. :roll:
 
No, the "right" to own an NBA franchise is contingent on the terms of the ownership agreement. Sterling violated that agreement.

Then the owners can vote to take away his property rights.

I as an owner wouldn't. Lots of others in this thread wouldn't either.

That's the beauty of hypothetical polls and America.
 
Didn't you state earlier: "My opinion is that personal property trumps NBA contracts. Simple as that." That doesn't sound hypothetical to me. :roll:

What does that have to do with the fact that this was a hypothetical poll?
 
That's nice.

I'd vote no. What were the reasons the others said they would vote no? I haven't seen you ask them that yet. Am I so interesting that you only care about my reasons?
Because I am always interested in understanding why those who call themselves "cons" claim that "ownership rights" trumps contracts. They don't seem to understand that even "property rights" are not exclusive, unlimited. "Property rights" are limited. As an analogy, you can own a home, but that does not mean you can violate city codes without consequence.
 
So then an owner can do anything, can damage the brand in real terms.....and the franchisees should not, cannot, strip that franchisee of his/her rights?

I'd like to address this one... I respect that there is a morals/public behavior clause that applies to the owners of an NBA franchises. I just don't feel that an owner who expresses his thoughts and feelings in private to a member of his family (or in this case to someone he is in a relationship with) in his own home, should be subject to losing his franchise. He did not publicly make racist comments or in any way act in such a manner that any reasonable person could conclude put the league, it's members, or other owners at financial risk. He did what every American has the constitutional right to do... He expressed his own thoughts and beliefs in the privacy of his own home, and there is no way anyone is going to tell me that in doings so, Sterling violated anything.

To strip the man of the team he bought and paid for, brings to mind "thought police", 1930's Germany and Castro's Cuba, where you can't freely express your thoughts even in the privacy of your own home. The NBA may have legal grounds to force him out, but I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a principled one.


Understand, if Sterling would have had that conversation at a restaurant, in a parking lot, at work, or anyplace else where there was no expectation of complete and total privacy, then I would have no problem voting him out. But because there was an expectation of privacy, to punish him smacks in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for.
 
I'd like to address this one... I respect that there is a morals/public behavior clause that applies to the owners of an NBA franchises. I just don't feel that an owner who expresses his thoughts and feelings in private to a member of his family (or in this case to someone he is in a relationship with) in his own home, should be subject to losing his franchise. He did not publicly make racist comments or in any way act in such a manner that any reasonable person could conclude put the league, it's members, or other owners at financial risk. He did what every American has the constitutional right to do... He expressed his own thoughts and beliefs in the privacy of his own home, and there is no way anyone is going to tell me that in doings so, Sterling violated anything.

To strip the man of the team he bought and paid for, brings to mind "thought police", 1930's Germany and Castro's Cuba, where you can't freely express your thoughts even in the privacy of your own home. The NBA may have legal grounds to force him out, but I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a principled one.


Understand, if Sterling would have had that conversation at a restaurant, in a parking lot, at work, or anyplace else where there was no expectation of complete and total privacy, then I would have no problem voting him out. But because there was an expectation of privacy, to punish him smacks in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for.
Once the racist comments become out, privacy doesn't matter, it cannot be used as defense. The damage is done. The issue becomes whether or not the league can afford to keep as a member someone who holds to the views, no matter how those views came to light.
 
Because I am always interested in understanding why those who call themselves "cons" claim that "ownership rights" trumps contracts. They don't seem to understand that even "property rights" are not exclusive, unlimited. "Property rights" are limited. As an analogy, you can own a home, but that does not mean you can violate city codes without consequence.

I don't know any cons.
 
I'd like to address this one... I respect that there is a morals/public behavior clause that applies to the owners of an NBA franchises. I just don't feel that an owner who expresses his thoughts and feelings in private to a member of his family (or in this case to someone he is in a relationship with) in his own home, should be subject to losing his franchise. He did not publicly make racist comments or in any way act in such a manner that any reasonable person could conclude put the league, it's members, or other owners at financial risk. He did what every American has the constitutional right to do... He expressed his own thoughts and beliefs in the privacy of his own home, and there is no way anyone is going to tell me that in doings so, Sterling violated anything.

To strip the man of the team he bought and paid for, brings to mind "thought police", 1930's Germany and Castro's Cuba, where you can't freely express your thoughts even in the privacy of your own home. The NBA may have legal grounds to force him out, but I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a principled one.


Understand, if Sterling would have had that conversation at a restaurant, in a parking lot, at work, or anyplace else where there was no expectation of complete and total privacy, then I would have no problem voting him out. But because there was an expectation of privacy, to punish him smacks in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for.

Well said, Grim.
 
I don't know any cons.
tres borrachos tres borrachos is online now
Guru


tres borrachos's Avatar Join Date
Feb 2012
Location
New England
Last Seen
Today @ 10:17 AM
Gender

Lean
Conservative


Is this your weak azz attempt to avoid discussing the limitation of "property rights"?

A: Yes, it is.
 
tres borrachos tres borrachos is online now
Guru


tres borrachos's Avatar Join Date
Feb 2012
Location
New England
Last Seen
Today @ 10:17 AM
Gender

Lean
Conservative


Is this your weak azz attempt to avoid discussing the limitation of "property rights"?

A: Yes, it is.

I'm a conservative. I'm not a con. I don't know any cons.

How are you making out getting the others who said they would vote no to articulate their reasons?
 
I'm a conservative. I'm not a con. I don't know any cons.

How are you making out getting the others who said they would vote no to articulate their reasons?
Um, my commenting in this thread is not exclusive to you....but then you miss many things.

This is just further diversion from your inability to discuss your understanding of your "property rights" concepts and their limitations.
 
Um, my commenting in this thread is not exclusive to you....but then you miss many things.

This is just further diversion from your inability to discuss your understanding of your "property rights" concepts and their limitations.

I believe in personal ownership rights. He paid for the franchise. I wouldn't vote to remove him of what he paid for.

Conservatives versus non-conservatives aren't the issue here, are they?

Did I miss your posts where you asked others, conservative or liberal, do defend why they would vote "no"? I'll have to go back and read the thread. Obviously I did miss those posts.
 
I'd like to address this one... I respect that there is a morals/public behavior clause that applies to the owners of an NBA franchises. I just don't feel that an owner who expresses his thoughts and feelings in private to a member of his family (or in this case to someone he is in a relationship with) in his own home, should be subject to losing his franchise. He did not publicly make racist comments or in any way act in such a manner that any reasonable person could conclude put the league, it's members, or other owners at financial risk. He did what every American has the constitutional right to do... He expressed his own thoughts and beliefs in the privacy of his own home, and there is no way anyone is going to tell me that in doings so, Sterling violated anything.

To strip the man of the team he bought and paid for, brings to mind "thought police", 1930's Germany and Castro's Cuba, where you can't freely express your thoughts even in the privacy of your own home. The NBA may have legal grounds to force him out, but I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a principled one.


Understand, if Sterling would have had that conversation at a restaurant, in a parking lot, at work, or anyplace else where there was no expectation of complete and total privacy, then I would have no problem voting him out. But because there was an expectation of privacy, to punish him smacks in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for.

You're missing something very important in this debate. The other owners would not vote him out to in your word to punish him. They would vote against him because they felt what he did tarnished the NBA brand and therefore hurt their investment in the NBA.
 
I believe in personal ownership rights.
You are just repeating yourself without explaining, in opposition to the request made in the OP.

But then again, obligation is obviously not something you believe in.
 
You are just repeating yourself without explaining, in opposition to the request made in the OP.

But then again, obligation is obviously not something you believe in.

I already explained it.

How are you making out with getting the others whose opinion you disagree with to explain it? I can't imagine I'm the only person in the thread whose opinion is relevant to you. Or am I?

I believe in personal property rights. I also believe that what Sterling did was inconsequential. I don't believe it will hurt the NBA. If it did, the NBA is in big trouble anyway.

Luckily for you, though, I'm not an NBA team owner, so it doesn't really matter what I think, does it? It isn't my decision what happens to Sterling. I have no control over it, nor do I care one way or another.
 
Shortly after the release of an audio recording this past Saturday morning of a conversation that allegedly included Clippers owner Donald Sterling, the NBA commenced an investigation, which among other things, included an interview of Mr. Sterling.

That investigation is now complete. The central findings of the investigation are that the man whose voice is heard on the recording and on a second recording from the same conversation that was released on Sunday is Mr. Sterling and that the hateful opinions voiced by that man are those of Mr. Sterling.

The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful; that they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage.

Sentiments of this kind are contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multicultural and multiethnic league.

I am personally distraught that the views expressed by Mr. Sterling came from within an institution that has historically taken such a leadership role in matters of race relations and caused current and former players, coaches, fans and partners of the NBA to question their very association with the league.

To them, and pioneers of the game like Earl Lloyd, Chuck Cooper, Sweetwater Clifton, the great Bill Russell, and particularly Magic Johnson, I apologize. Accordingly, effective immediately, I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers organization or the NBA. Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices. He may not be present at any Clippers facility, and he may not participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team.

He will also be barred from attending NBA Board of Governors meetings or participating in any other league activity.

I am also fining Mr. Sterling $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed under the NBA constitution. These funds will be donated to organizations dedicated to anti discrimination and tolerance efforts that will be jointly selected by the NBA and its Players Association.

As for Mr. Sterling's ownership interest in the Clippers, I will urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team and will do everything in my power to ensure that that happens. This has been a painful moment for all members of the NBA family. I appreciate the support and understanding of our players during this process, and I am particularly grateful for the leadership shown by Coach Doc Rivers, Union President Chris Paul and Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, who has been acting as the players' representative in this matter.

We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling's views. They simply have no place in the NBA.

Thank you, and I'll take any questions.

Full transcript of Adam Silver on Donald Sterling ban
 
No, I asked you to express your understanding of the limitations of "property rights".

And I said I understand personal property rights. I have my opinion on them.

What are the opinions of the others who said they would vote "no"? I missed you pointing out to them - conservatives and liberals alike - that they shouldn't vote "no". Can you point out which posts they are?
 
Once the racist comments become out, privacy doesn't matter, it cannot be used as defense. The damage is done. The issue becomes whether or not the league can afford to keep as a member someone who holds to the views, no matter how those views came to light.

Again, I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making one of principal.
 
Yes because he's bad for my business. We're franchise owners and he's devaluing the brand.
 
Again, I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making one of principal.
What....the "principle" of privacy?

You have no qualms about the "privacy" of public officials when what they do in "private" comes out and damages them.

Please, don't base your argument on "privacy", your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
As far as the sale of the team, I'm opposed to it - but he did agree to abide by the NBA's constitution. It'd be no different than people who decide to buy homes in places where they have home owner's associations or condo committees.

That "Secret" NBA Constitution Is Now Online

The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.

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.

It's a damn shame because I don't think what he did was terrible. However, an NBA team isn't a car or a house. He doesn't own the team in that sense. He is more like the owner of a condo than the owner of a house. It may be paid in full but if he doesn't follow certain regulations and laws, he can be forced out and he agreed with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom