What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Donald Sterling vs. Cliven Bundy (1 Viewer)

Which old white man is more racist?

  • Donald Sterling is more racist

    Votes: 26 25.2%
  • Cliven Bundy is more racist

    Votes: 34 33.0%
  • Both are equally racist

    Votes: 26 25.2%
  • Neither one is racist (johnjohn default answer)

    Votes: 17 16.5%

  • Total voters
    103
i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority
Isn't a forced sale a form of confiscation?

The way to deal with this is to protest outside of games, stop buying tickets and merchandise, good players leaving via free agency etc.. It's a little unsettling the amount of people who want to impose their will because they disagree with this mans speech.
see the point is if people deal with it the way you say, it hurts the other other owners

which is why those owners MAY have a basis to say, listen, your issues cannot hurt our teams and our league

magic johnson can say this man should not be an owner, that is his right, but he cannot make it happen. The other owners perhaps can. I do not think they have a moral obligation to let this man continue to own an NBA team and drag the league down if they think that is what will happen
I understand what you are saying and it's a legitimate point, but it's too much of a gray area for me. He hasn't broken the law. As abhorrent as racism is, it's not illegal.

Mark Cuban is kind of a PITA for the league... would you support the other owners ousting him? Where is the line drawn? What about the Ricketts family have some ties to right wingers and the tea party? Some would argue that could hurt business in a liberal city like Chicago. I just think it's a slippery slope and we should do everything possible to support free speech rights especially when that speech occurred in a private setting and was illegally recorded.
there's a marked difference between PITA and loosing us money by alentating a large part of our fanbase and players

your comparison is not valid because there is nothing inherently abhorrent about being right wing and it would not cost the same money or draw the same ire. We can what if the other way too. What if he had come out at a pressed and said black nba players should not be paid? What if he said he hates america and wishes Osama Bin Laden had won? Is your position no matter what he does to damage the league and the other owners they have no right to try and get him to leave? 1 owner can push the lague down and they have some moral obligation to watch their own businesses suffer and do nothing?

In the end he is in a unique spot as an owner of 1/30th of the nba. 29 other owners have rights too.

 
i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority
Isn't a forced sale a form of confiscation?

The way to deal with this is to protest outside of games, stop buying tickets and merchandise, good players leaving via free agency etc.. It's a little unsettling the amount of people who want to impose their will because they disagree with this mans speech.
see the point is if people deal with it the way you say, it hurts the other other owners

which is why those owners MAY have a basis to say, listen, your issues cannot hurt our teams and our league

magic johnson can say this man should not be an owner, that is his right, but he cannot make it happen. The other owners perhaps can. I do not think they have a moral obligation to let this man continue to own an NBA team and drag the league down if they think that is what will happen
I understand what you are saying and it's a legitimate point, but it's too much of a gray area for me. He hasn't broken the law. As abhorrent as racism is, it's not illegal.

Mark Cuban is kind of a PITA for the league... would you support the other owners ousting him? Where is the line drawn? What about the Ricketts family have some ties to right wingers and the tea party? Some would argue that could hurt business in a liberal city like Chicago. I just think it's a slippery slope and we should do everything possible to support free speech rights especially when that speech occurred in a private setting and was illegally recorded.
You're really comparing Cuban to Sterling? Really?

 
I am not really sure what the league or owners can do, legally.

It is all very interesting, and it will be interesting to see it play out.

I do think that regardless they can exert enough pressure to convince him to sell, or turn it over to his kids. Given his age he could easily write that off publically without admitting he was forced out, even if people would know othewise.

The owners of these teams are not smart, and they have huge investments in this league, they'll find a way to protect it.

That's my guess anyway, maybe he'll be stuborn and stick, or maybe they'll give him the "you can own but don't show up" treatement

 
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.

 
i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority
Isn't a forced sale a form of confiscation?

The way to deal with this is to protest outside of games, stop buying tickets and merchandise, good players leaving via free agency etc.. It's a little unsettling the amount of people who want to impose their will because they disagree with this mans speech.
see the point is if people deal with it the way you say, it hurts the other other owners

which is why those owners MAY have a basis to say, listen, your issues cannot hurt our teams and our league

magic johnson can say this man should not be an owner, that is his right, but he cannot make it happen. The other owners perhaps can. I do not think they have a moral obligation to let this man continue to own an NBA team and drag the league down if they think that is what will happen
I understand what you are saying and it's a legitimate point, but it's too much of a gray area for me. He hasn't broken the law. As abhorrent as racism is, it's not illegal.

Mark Cuban is kind of a PITA for the league... would you support the other owners ousting him? Where is the line drawn? What about the Ricketts family have some ties to right wingers and the tea party? Some would argue that could hurt business in a liberal city like Chicago. I just think it's a slippery slope and we should do everything possible to support free speech rights especially when that speech occurred in a private setting and was illegally recorded.
there's a marked difference between PITA and loosing us money by alentating a large part of our fanbase and players

your comparison is not valid because there is nothing inherently abhorrent about being right wing and it would not cost the same money or draw the same ire. We can what if the other way too. What if he had come out at a pressed and said black nba players should not be paid? What if he said he hates america and wishes Osama Bin Laden had won? Is your position no matter what he does to damage the league and the other owners they have no right to try and get him to leave? 1 owner can push the lague down and they have some moral obligation to watch their own businesses suffer and do nothing?

In the end he is in a unique spot as an owner of 1/30th of the nba. 29 other owners have rights too.
I pretty much agree with you... it matters where on the spectrum the offense occurs. With this being a private conversation, illegally recorded, it doesn't pass the litmus for some of the drastic measures being suggested.

 
i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority
Isn't a forced sale a form of confiscation?

The way to deal with this is to protest outside of games, stop buying tickets and merchandise, good players leaving via free agency etc.. It's a little unsettling the amount of people who want to impose their will because they disagree with this mans speech.
see the point is if people deal with it the way you say, it hurts the other other owners

which is why those owners MAY have a basis to say, listen, your issues cannot hurt our teams and our league

magic johnson can say this man should not be an owner, that is his right, but he cannot make it happen. The other owners perhaps can. I do not think they have a moral obligation to let this man continue to own an NBA team and drag the league down if they think that is what will happen
I understand what you are saying and it's a legitimate point, but it's too much of a gray area for me. He hasn't broken the law. As abhorrent as racism is, it's not illegal.

Mark Cuban is kind of a PITA for the league... would you support the other owners ousting him? Where is the line drawn? What about the Ricketts family have some ties to right wingers and the tea party? Some would argue that could hurt business in a liberal city like Chicago. I just think it's a slippery slope and we should do everything possible to support free speech rights especially when that speech occurred in a private setting and was illegally recorded.
there's a marked difference between PITA and loosing us money by alentating a large part of our fanbase and players

your comparison is not valid because there is nothing inherently abhorrent about being right wing and it would not cost the same money or draw the same ire. We can what if the other way too. What if he had come out at a pressed and said black nba players should not be paid? What if he said he hates america and wishes Osama Bin Laden had won? Is your position no matter what he does to damage the league and the other owners they have no right to try and get him to leave? 1 owner can push the lague down and they have some moral obligation to watch their own businesses suffer and do nothing?

In the end he is in a unique spot as an owner of 1/30th of the nba. 29 other owners have rights too.
I pretty much agree with you... it matters where on the spectrum the offense occurs. With this being a private conversation, illegally recorded, it doesn't pass the litmus for some of the drastic measures being suggested.
being public in a recording is what matters everyone has heard it

 
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.
there is a big difference between knowing racism exists, and hearing it

it is a boy's club, and if the other members decide he should not be in the club, i think they'll find a way

 
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.
there is a big difference between knowing racism exists, and hearing it
Reminds me of people who get fired for watching pron at work. I wouldn't fire them for watching pron. I'd fire them for being so stupid they got caught.

 
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.
there is a big difference between knowing racism exists, and hearing it
Reminds me of people who get fired for watching pron at work. I wouldn't fire them for watching pron. I'd fire them for being so stupid they got caught.
Um, no. If porn was illegal to watch where you work then you fire him for breaking the rules.

 
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.
there is a big difference between knowing racism exists, and hearing it
Reminds me of people who get fired for watching pron at work. I wouldn't fire them for watching pron. I'd fire them for being so stupid they got caught.
Um, no. If porn was illegal to watch where you work then you fire him for breaking the rules.
I think you missed my point. :)

If other owners harbor similar thoughts they likely aren't pissed at Sterling for thinking similar things that they do even if those things are wrong (or in the context of my analogy "illegal."), they're likely really upset that he was (apparently) so stupid he got caught.

 
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.
there is a big difference between knowing racism exists, and hearing it
Reminds me of people who get fired for watching pron at work. I wouldn't fire them for watching pron. I'd fire them for being so stupid they got caught.
Um, no. If porn was illegal to watch where you work then you fire him for breaking the rules.
you fire them for creating a hostile work environment, putting the company's reputation at risk and generally gold-bricking

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.
there is a big difference between knowing racism exists, and hearing it
Reminds me of people who get fired for watching pron at work. I wouldn't fire them for watching pron. I'd fire them for being so stupid they got caught.
Um, no. If porn was illegal to watch where you work then you fire him for breaking the rules.
you fire them for creating a hostile work environment, putting the company's reputation at risk and generally gold-bricking
Which all falls under rules/maintaining order. I agree with all of that, probably several other reasons also, like not keeping your work area clean.

 
Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the boy's club of boy's clubs. The only way he'll be forced out is if he agrees to it, and he has shown how stubborn he can be. But if people don't think there are other professional sports owners or people of Sterling wealth and influence aren't racist, or won't continue to be, well then you are likely out of touch.
there is a big difference between knowing racism exists, and hearing it
Reminds me of people who get fired for watching pron at work. I wouldn't fire them for watching pron. I'd fire them for being so stupid they got caught.
Um, no. If porn was illegal to watch where you work then you fire him for breaking the rules.
I think you missed my point. :)

If other owners harbor similar thoughts they likely aren't pissed at Sterling for thinking similar things that they do even if those things are wrong (or in the context of my analogy "illegal."), they're likely really upset that he was (apparently) so stupid he got caught.
Ah, gotcha. I'd say there is probably a lot of truth to that.

 
Why was recording the conversation "illegal"? What law was broken? :oldunsure:
don't know the particulars here - but some states require all parties consent prior to recording. Other states only require one party's consent (i.e. th party doing the recording.)
good to know...assuming that California is one where all parties have to consent? Fair enough....how in any way does that have any bearing on what the guy said? It doesn't change the meaning of the words does it? Let him sue her for all I care....doesn't matter does it? It doesn't change what he said.

 
Why was recording the conversation "illegal"? What law was broken? :oldunsure:
don't know the particulars here - but some states require all parties consent prior to recording. Other states only require one party's consent (i.e. th party doing the recording.)
I thought about this earlier, but for the purposes of Sterling it doesn't matter a whole lot. Damage is done.
My thoughts exactly....so he can sue her, woopie!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why was recording the conversation "illegal"? What law was broken? :oldunsure:
don't know the particulars here - but some states require all parties consent prior to recording. Other states only require one party's consent (i.e. th party doing the recording.)
I thought about this earlier, but for the purposes of Sterling it doesn't matter a whole lot. Damage is done.
Some damage is done. An awful lot more is not yet done. She's apparently got about 100 hours of recordings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The word on Sterling is that the guy doesn't sell any of his property. Ever.

One would think that now would be a great time to sell the Clippers. The franchise has to have appreciated by boatloads, right? What the heck is that old man gonna do with all those assets anyway?

 
The word on Sterling is that the guy doesn't sell any of his property. Ever.

One would think that now would be a great time to sell the Clippers. The franchise has to have appreciated by boatloads, right? What the heck is that old man gonna do with all those assets anyway?
Supposedly his stepson has been in training for years to take over.

Much like Jim Buss...

 
The word on Sterling is that the guy doesn't sell any of his property. Ever.

One would think that now would be a great time to sell the Clippers. The franchise has to have appreciated by boatloads, right? What the heck is that old man gonna do with all those assets anyway?
He paid like $12M for the team way back when.

 
The word on Sterling is that the guy doesn't sell any of his property. Ever.

One would think that now would be a great time to sell the Clippers. The franchise has to have appreciated by boatloads, right? What the heck is that old man gonna do with all those assets anyway?
Definitely the franchise increased in value.

If the NBA "strips" him of the team, he's going to make a boatload.

Is his divorce finalized?

 
The word on Sterling is that the guy doesn't sell any of his property. Ever.

One would think that now would be a great time to sell the Clippers. The franchise has to have appreciated by boatloads, right? What the heck is that old man gonna do with all those assets anyway?
Definitely the franchise increased in value.

If the NBA "strips" him of the team, he's going to make a boatload.

Is his divorce finalized?
I saw the numbers yesterday, but forget where. He bought in for $12mm in 1981 and the franchise is valued between $700-800mm.
 
Why was recording the conversation "illegal"? What law was broken? :oldunsure:
don't know the particulars here - but some states require all parties consent prior to recording. Other states only require one party's consent (i.e. th party doing the recording.)
I thought about this earlier, but for the purposes of Sterling it doesn't matter a whole lot. Damage is done.
Some damage is done. An awful lot more is not yet done. She's apparently got about 100 hours of recordings.
Sounds like something settled out of court. Can't wait until she lets Ray J plow her and then gets on the reality TV circuit, you know that's where this will eventually end up.

In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.

 
In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.
As in player endorsements? That would really suck.
No, the players get 50% of the ad revenue.
Really? Is this a Clippers thing?
Pretty sure 50% goes into a league pot and half of that goes to the players.

The major difference is that teams must meet an overall expected revenue mark in the new plan compared to the old plan, which broke out expected revenue into specific amounts of local advertising and sponsorship revenue based on market size.One team source said that objections to the plan from high-revenue teams were offset by the fact that their massive team revenues in part are responsible for driving up the player’s salaries, given that under the new CBA, the players get 50 percent of the league’s total revenue, which last year was about $4 billion.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx

 
In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.
As in player endorsements? That would really suck.
No, the players get 50% of the ad revenue.
Really? Is this a Clippers thing?
Pretty sure 50% goes into a league pot and half of that goes to the players.

The major difference is that teams must meet an overall expected revenue mark in the new plan compared to the old plan, which broke out expected revenue into specific amounts of local advertising and sponsorship revenue based on market size.One team source said that objections to the plan from high-revenue teams were offset by the fact that their massive team revenues in part are responsible for driving up the player’s salaries, given that under the new CBA, the players get 50 percent of the league’s total revenue, which last year was about $4 billion.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx
That doesn't indicate to me that the players will suddenly get less than their contracts state they are to be paid because advertisers stop paying the owners.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.
As in player endorsements? That would really suck.
No, the players get 50% of the ad revenue.
Really? Is this a Clippers thing?
Pretty sure 50% goes into a league pot and half of that goes to the players.

The major difference is that teams must meet an overall expected revenue mark in the new plan compared to the old plan, which broke out expected revenue into specific amounts of local advertising and sponsorship revenue based on market size.One team source said that objections to the plan from high-revenue teams were offset by the fact that their massive team revenues in part are responsible for driving up the player’s salaries, given that under the new CBA, the players get 50 percent of the league’s total revenue, which last year was about $4 billion.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx
That doesn't indicate to me that the players will suddenly get less than their contracts state they are to be paid because advertisers stop paying the owners.
No but the less money teams take in, is that much less teams will give players on future contracts. Maybe not a huge deal, but this is Los Angeles which is the second biggest media market in the U.S. It's not like Sterling owns the Grizzles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.
As in player endorsements? That would really suck.
No, the players get 50% of the ad revenue.
Really? Is this a Clippers thing?
Pretty sure 50% goes into a league pot and half of that goes to the players.
The major difference is that teams must meet an overall expected revenue mark in the new plan compared to the old plan, which broke out expected revenue into specific amounts of local advertising and sponsorship revenue based on market size.

One team source said that objections to the plan from high-revenue teams were offset by the fact that their massive team revenues in part are responsible for driving up the player’s salaries, given that under the new CBA, the players get 50 percent of the league’s total revenue, which last year was about $4 billion.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx
The cap is based on Basketball Related Income. The few hundred thousand (???) that the Clips may lose will have a negligible effect on the cap and zero effect on player contracts.

 
In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.
As in player endorsements? That would really suck.
No, the players get 50% of the ad revenue.
Really? Is this a Clippers thing?
Pretty sure 50% goes into a league pot and half of that goes to the players.
The major difference is that teams must meet an overall expected revenue mark in the new plan compared to the old plan, which broke out expected revenue into specific amounts of local advertising and sponsorship revenue based on market size.

One team source said that objections to the plan from high-revenue teams were offset by the fact that their massive team revenues in part are responsible for driving up the player’s salaries, given that under the new CBA, the players get 50 percent of the league’s total revenue, which last year was about $4 billion.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx
The cap is based on Basketball Related Income. The few hundred thousand (???) that the Clips may lose will have a negligible effect on the cap and zero effect on player contracts.
That's not what they were saying on ESPN radio. :shrug:

Also if the Clippers got to the finals or something, it would be a heck of a lot more than a few hundred grand. Hell, I bet it's a few hundred grand a game.

 
In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.
As in player endorsements? That would really suck.
No, the players get 50% of the ad revenue.
Really? Is this a Clippers thing?
Pretty sure 50% goes into a league pot and half of that goes to the players.

The major difference is that teams must meet an overall expected revenue mark in the new plan compared to the old plan, which broke out expected revenue into specific amounts of local advertising and sponsorship revenue based on market size.One team source said that objections to the plan from high-revenue teams were offset by the fact that their massive team revenues in part are responsible for driving up the player’s salaries, given that under the new CBA, the players get 50 percent of the league’s total revenue, which last year was about $4 billion.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx
That doesn't indicate to me that the players will suddenly get less than their contracts state they are to be paid because advertisers stop paying the owners.
No but the less money teams take in, is that much less teams will give players on future contracts. Maybe not a huge deal, but this is Los Angeles which is the second biggest media market in the U.S. It's not like Sterling owns the Grizzles.
I figure they'll resolve this issue long before it actually impacts subsequent contracts and/or the next iteration of the CBA. Either they figure out some sort of Sterling contrition that will bring the advertisers back or they'll have to disassociate Sterling from the league if they sense the potential revenue loss would be substantial.

It's not going to change what anyone gets paid for this season.

 
In other news, 11 sponsors have pulled out. 50 percent of the money lost is the players' money, 80% of which are African American. The irony is as thick as Kloe Kardashian.
As in player endorsements? That would really suck.
No, the players get 50% of the ad revenue.
Really? Is this a Clippers thing?
Pretty sure 50% goes into a league pot and half of that goes to the players.
The major difference is that teams must meet an overall expected revenue mark in the new plan compared to the old plan, which broke out expected revenue into specific amounts of local advertising and sponsorship revenue based on market size.

One team source said that objections to the plan from high-revenue teams were offset by the fact that their massive team revenues in part are responsible for driving up the player’s salaries, given that under the new CBA, the players get 50 percent of the league’s total revenue, which last year was about $4 billion.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx
The cap is based on Basketball Related Income. The few hundred thousand (???) that the Clips may lose will have a negligible effect on the cap and zero effect on player contracts.
That's not what they were saying on ESPN radio. :shrug: Also if the Clippers got to the finals or something, it would be a heck of a lot more than a few hundred grand. Hell, I bet it's a few hundred grand a game.
I have no idea what they'd pull in per game but it would have to be a significant amount to impact the players. I'd guess that some of those sponsors that pulled out were also under contract so they'd be paying anyway but asked for their name to be removed. Even $10-20M wouldn't make a difference to the players.

ESPN guy was probably trying to sensationalize the whole thing. The cap will be right where everyone projected but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 
Probably so. I'm guessing someone is going to come out with some lost revenue numbers though, and $1 is too much for the NBA. They haven't made a move yet because Sterling is the longest tenured owner, and he has as many lawyers as the NBA has. He's definitely out though, how they resolve that will be very interesting.

 
Probably so. I'm guessing someone is going to come out with some lost revenue numbers though, and $1 is too much for the NBA. They haven't made a move yet because Sterling is the longest tenured owner, and he has as many lawyers as the NBA has. He's definitely out though, how they resolve that will be very interesting.
Maybe they could try to rig up some crazy model that calculates how much annual revenue he loses the league by refusing to sell and fine him that amount every year to make up for it. I'm sure that's not in the realm of possibility (or even legal within the NBA bylaw framework), but the ensuing lawsuits would be good times.

 
Sarnoff said:
Donald Sterling vs. Cliven Bundy

The GOPs ticket for President and Vice President..
I believe Sterling is a Democrat.
Registered Republican since 1998. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-no-donald-sterling-20140428,0,6977964.column#axzz30EO1lXLa
Maybe he only registered as a republican to vote in their primaries. It makes the most logical sense to vote in your opposition party's primary instead of your own. That he hasn't donate money to any republicans, but has to democrats, is more telling.
to be fair he seems apolitical...a few small donations to Ds and registered R

 
I don't think so...

No, Martin Luther King Jr. Was Not A Republican — But Here’s What He Had To Say About Them

“Most people don’t talk about the fact that Martin Luther King was a Republican.”

That’s a quote from Ada Fisher, a Republican National Committeewoman from North Carolina, that was published without qualification or correction this week by ABC News.

Fisher is wrong on two fronts. First, many people talk about the “fact” that King was a Republican. It is asserted incessantly by conservatives on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet, especially in the lead up to today’s 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. The claim is most prominently advanced by King’s niece, Republican activist Alveda King. Over the years, conservative groups have purchased billboards making the claim.

Second, Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican. Or a Democrat.

King was not a partisan and never endorsed any political candidate. In a 1958 interview, King said “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses … And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”

King did, however, weigh in on the Republican party during his lifetime. In Chapter 23 of his autobiography, King writes this about the 1964 Republican National Convention:



The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right.
The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America,
I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

King barnstormed the country on behalf on Johnson in 1964, “maintaining only a thin veneer of nonpartisanship,” according to biographer Nick Kotz. King called Johnson’s win a “great victory for the forces of progress and a defeat for the forces of retrogress.”

Here is what King had to say about Ronald Reagan, the hero of modern Republicans:



When
a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency
, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events.


David Garrow, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning biography of King, stated “
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...n-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/It’s simply incorrect to call Dr. King a Republican
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...n-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/.”


King, according to Garrow, did hold
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...n-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/some Republicans
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...n-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/ — including Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller — in high regard. He also was harshly critical of Lyndon Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War.





In 2008, King’s son Martin Luther King III said “
http://www.politifact.com/tennessee...r-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican
http://www.politifact.com/tennessee...r-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican.” Garrow claimed there is little doubt King voted for Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson in 1964.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top