Good Read on Free Speech

[spider fan]

Barton Hinkle makes a good presentation on the dynamics of suppression of certain points of view by attempts to silence those who whom one disagrees. Have noticed the same trend on this board. We have come a long way from what I was taught at the University of Richmond - I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", published 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre

Now to our detriment often those with opposing views are subjected to browbeating, name calling, and worse. I don't understand that mindset because to me it means the person doing it is insecure in their own position and unable to make a rational argument for their point of view so resorts to indefensible tactics. Why is it a threat to someone if someone else holds a different point of view? If the view you espouse has merit it speaks for itself. If it doesn't it will fall on its own weight.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/bart-hinkle/hinkle-does-anyone-like-free-speech/article_4b3b1bb7-a2d8-548e-8823-9853481e4172.html

 

[Eight Legger]

The main issue we face as a nation as it relates to this alleged attack on the right to "free speech" is a philosophical difference about what type of statements are truly defensible opinions and what type are statements of ignorance, intolerance, or worse.

For example, on one side, you have people who believe that saying "I don't agree with you being gay" is the equivalent of saying "I don't agree with your choice of clothing." On the other side, you have people who believe that saying "I don't agree with you being gay" is equivalent to saying "I don't agree with you being black/Asian/handicapped, etc."

The former group can't understand why the latter would criticize it for "expressing an opinion" on gays, while the latter can't believe how ignorant and offensive that "opinion" is.

My personal opinion is that religion is not a be-all and end-all, but rather one tool in a toolbox full of many others that can be helpful in determining a reasonable way to think, act and understand. Some believe it is the only guiding light for their lives, while others believe it has no merit at all. In our society, though, people of all religious backgrounds ? and of none ? live together under one roof, and that means that eventually we are all governed collectively under a much larger umbrella than just your religion or mine, or our neighbor's lack of religion.

I don't think you get a pass just because your religion says one thing or another. I could start a religion tomorrow that says left-handed people are the spawn of the devil and should be beaten on sight, and that could legitimately be my "opinion." But reasonable people of all backgrounds likely would agree that my opinion was idiotic, ignorant and just plain wrong. The issue we are facing now is where to draw the line between an "opinion" like that one and a legitimate opinion.

As far as this column goes, I would argue that based on the instances he cites, freedom of speech is alive and well. Individuals, politicians and businesses spoke out about various issues, none were arrested for doing so, and the public reacted as it saw fit. That's America. The free market system did exactly what it is free to do.

Criticizing a politician because of what he or she stands for politically is fair game, regardless of party. But criticizing a politician (or anyone else) because he or she is black, handicapped or a female, for example, is more than just "opinion." It is ignorance and intolerance and should be pointed out as such. That doesn't mean that someone lacks the right to freely espouse such beliefs ? no one will be arrested for saying such things ? but it does mean that reasonable people on both sides can and should call them out for their intolerant stances. My two cents.

 

[WebSpinner]

Eight, a lot of the silencing is not for criticizing someone for being black or gay, it is for saying you don't agree with quotas or stating that you feel that marriage, in your view, should only be between a man and a woman. marge shot lost her baseball team for saying that hitler did some good things in germany, which he did. many, many more examples and there is most definitely an attempt to shush speech and it has been going on for a while and it is being doled out by certain people and it is helping to polarize our country.

 

[spider fan]

Everyone has some value system although many would have a difficult time articulating what it is. Think the point of Hinkle's article is that one's perspective determines whether or not one thinks a certain point of view is acceptable or outrageous. Concerning one's religious views and how much they determine how one lives his/her life that is the very first thing mentioned in the First Amendment and its importance can not be cast aside. Unfortunately we have reached a point where if one person is "offended" by another person's expression of their faith the naysayers go on a tirade. You mentioned the example of homosexuality. Why is Jason Collins celebrated by the media because he is a homosexual and has the need to tell it and on the same hand Tim Tebow is pilloried by many in the media because he is a Christian and has the need to tell it? There is also the situation where some who have demanded tolerance for their point of view are totally intolerant and try to silence those with an opposite point of view.

As an example of one person being offended and society's overreaction the Coast Guard Academy had a midshipmen who protested that "the Year of our Lord" was going to be written on his degree and the first reaction was to take "the Year of our Lord" off of all degrees but it was later decided that "the Year of our Lord" would only be omitted on the degree of the one who was offended and not on all degrees.

After all Article VII of the U.S. Constitution reads: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."
This post was edited on 4/14 10:32 AM by spider fan

 

[Eight Legger]

I think the point on religion is that religious beliefs of any type should not and do not supersede the law of the land. The nation was not founded on religious doctrines, it was founded on the freedom of -- or from -- religion. If you're religious, you probably don't object to religious phrases appearing in government. Someone who isn't religious may or may not object. But the bigger point is that religion has nothing to do with government.

I don't control the media or anyone's interpretations of it. I think most of us would agree that the 24/7 broadcast news cycle has led to a lot of things being blown out of proportion or forced upon us in ways we'd rather they weren't, but such is society today. They would stop doing that if people stopped watching, but apparently no one does.

I don't think Jason Collins was celebrated for being gay, I think he was applauded by many for being the first person in a major sport to feel comfortable enough to say publicly that he was. Tebow received a ton of positive press for months; hell, ESPN basically mandated that his name be spoken on every radio and TV show it did for awhile. Some people were critical of his religious views being broadcast frequently, just as some people were critical of Collins' announcement.

In general these days, I think we all tend to look for examples that prove our points but we gloss over those that do not. And that's everyone, not just one side or the other. That causes more polarization on every topic, because instead of listening to the other side and considering its stance, we just seek out more information to support our own stance and debase the other side.

 

[WebSpinner]

the national press, include espn, is one of the biggest problems with this. if a senator is conservative, any story or headline say right wing, extremist, conservative while a guy like ted kennedy who was kicked out of college for cheating, was responsible for the death of a young woman, was a womanizer, a drunk, a liberal was just referred to as the senior senator from mass. rush limbaugh is always referred to as right wing, conservative, extreme in any story about him while keith olgermann is just a sports or political commentator. a beauty queen contestant was asked a question by a judge about gay marriage and she responded that she felt that marriage was to be between a man and a woman. all of the news, tv, internet, etc. said that her answer was controversial, not the question but the answer. they attempt to make anything that they do not agree with to be extreme, controversial and that is what polarizes us. both sides should either be referred to as controversial or liberal or conservative or extreme not just one side. this needs to be fixed

This post was edited on 4/14 12:30 PM by WebSpinner

 

[Eight Legger]

I agree that TV is responsible in large part for widening the divide. It all goes back to my previous point. Now if you are a conservative, you have your own network in Fox News that will tell you what a bunch of maroons the liberals are. If you're a liberal, you have MSNBC to tell you what a bunch of maroons the conservatives are.

As it relates to politics, it's just a constant back-and-forth game of "gotcha." Every time a Democrat is convicted of bribery or something, the conservatives get excited and say "See! What a crooked party!" And every time a Republican is caught cheating on his wife, the liberals get excited and say "See! What a bunch of fake moralists that party is!" This is all stupid and ridiculous, but it will go on forever. There are idiots of all persuasions, and we all should have better things to do with our lives than waste time trying to make ourselves feel better by blasting the other side over something as low-brow as that.

Hate to keep coming back to the gay marriage issue, but I think it is the best example of what happens during a time when the public is transitioning from one set of beliefs to a new set. Once upon a time, the majority of Americans believed that it was ok to buy and sell black slaves. Eventually, someone said "Hey, this is not right." And gradually, public opinion changed. Today, I can't imagine anyone would support someone who said "You know what would be a good idea? Selling blacks into slavery."

I view the gay marriage issue the same way. Once upon a time, the majority of people probably opposed it. But now the tide has turned, and I think those who oppose it are in the minority. So when someone speaks out publicly against it, I think the attitude of the majority of the nation now is 'Why are you being insensitive to the human rights of another person?'

 

[WebSpinner]

Eight, you may be right, you may be wrong with your last remark. because of political correctness, a ton of people will say in a survey or in public, what they think they have to say not what they really feel because they fear the painting in the corner deal that happens each time the answer is "wrong" to the entity or one asking the question. would not believe anything that we hear on anything anymore because we all walk around on eggshells afraid we are going to be demonized if our answer or view does not fit the mainstream media's view. also fox stands alone not just against msnbc but cbs, abc, nbc, cnn, and all the newspapers which i guess makes them wrong at least to those who keep this entire charade going. if folks are in fear, afraid to say what they truly feel about a subject, due to being attacked, painted in a corner, free speech is being squelched.

This post was edited on 4/14 3:02 PM by WebSpinner

 

[spider fan]

Many would disagree with the premise of comparing an inherent characteristic like skin color to a behavioral choice. If a sex act of any kind is not a choice what is it? One example is
In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents' "slippery slope" arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.

In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah's law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora's Box. People have all kinds of thoughts about what they might like to do sexually but most people control themselves. Why else does the state of Virginia publicize a sexual offender list? Have many become so "enlightened" or "tolerant" all of a sudden that not only centuries and centuries of recognized behavior but also the standards of every major world religion concerning marriage has changed? Morality is not determined by popular vote. Yes legality can allow situations that are morally wrong. The firestorm that is unleashed on people like Truett Cathy, chairman and founder of Chik- filet, cause many people to not express their true beliefs because the ensuing browbeating, threats, and worse are not worth it. It is a sad day indeed when a person is attached verbally or physically because their opinion is not the same as someone else's. A current example is the movie "Irreplaceable" which "dares" to claim that the best environment to raise a child is in a family with a man married to a woman. The producer of the movie Focus on the Family has been subjected to name calling and an orchestrated campaign to pressure movie theaters not to show the movie and some have chosen that route to avoid controversy. Guess that gets back to the premise of the article by Bart Hinkle- whoever has the biggest most intolerant mob wins. I still agree with Voltaire.

 

[spiderman]

It is a sad day indeed when a person is attached verbally or physically because their opinion is not the same as someone else's.

it's a sad day when a person is attacked verbally or physically because of who they are, too.

personally, I'm not gay. It's not that I chose not to be gay. I'm just not gay. anyone that's ever known someone who is gay knows it's not a choice. it's who they are. and yet they're still good people, or at least some are. just like some straight people are good people. yet some straight people feel gay people need to live some kind of lie their whole lives. I guess because that way we don't have to see them holding hands somewhere.

I don't even know what the gay marriage fight is over. Is it just that some straight people don't want gay people to have tax benefits? or insurance coverage? or hospital visitation rights? what else is it? not allowing marriage doesn't stop anyone from being gay.

 

[Eight Legger]

spider fan, I think all I'd say to that is that you're considering the act itself as a choice, when it's not a particular act that is really up for debate -- it's a characteristic that science says is predetermined. I don't believe anyone "chooses" to be gay any more than you or I "chose" not to be. Given all the backlash against gays through history, why would anyone make that choice?

No amount of choosing was going to convince me to marry another guy. No amount of convincing a gay person is going to convince him to marry a woman. In that way, I think the comparison to race or gender is apropos.

To me, some of this argument is akin to me proclaiming that 2+2 = 46 because that's what my religion tells me, and I have every right to proclaim that publicly without being told my opinion is wrong. (Well, sure, I have the RIGHT to say that publicly, but others are going to tell me that I am making a foolish argument that is not based upon logic or fact.)

This post was edited on 4/14 5:46 PM by Eight Legger

 

[WebSpinner]

spiderman, am a fiscal conservative and avoid and do not vote on the social issues at all. am not for gay couples being left out in the cold as far as benefits or anything else. am all for them having a "union", just do not call it marriage, where they receive the same benefits as married couples or for changing the laws defining married benefits to those in a union, very simple and marriage remains between a man and a woman, in which i deeply believe. the key here is that one should not be slammed for thinking that way or be told the thinking is extreme or controversial, it is not.

 

[Anachnoid]

The right to free speech should never be an issue. Sometimes it's difficult to argue against stupidity. Back in hs and college I used to extoll the virtues of the Stupidist Party...motto? Just say no to stupidity. I unfortunately read too many discussions where positions are outlined under color of religion. I am very much an advocate of the separation of church and state. I have attended too many public gatherings where I listened to Christianist ( those who wrap their politics under guise of Christianity), pray some drivel that was embarrassing to hear as it made some off the wall request.. Full disclosure-cradle episcopalian here. Adm Homer, I know, I know. I was glad the Gov vetoed the public prayer bill. I'm fine with a moment of silence or prayers for the departed ...(just threw that in there 'cause I know it's an issue with some folks) - there are those who wouldn't want to hear this prayer nor should they be subjected to it anymore than I want some low churched backwoods evangelist tossing snakes out into the audience. And for Holy Week, just recall, the prayer in Gethsemene, "Father if thou be willing remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done." And of course in this temporal life we lead, KEEP SPEECHING!

 

[WebSpinner]

A, listen to you pontificate the complete democrat mantra and that is OK but when you attack us snake handlers as being backwoods, that is enough. live in a very urban area and handle said serpents each week along with other citified men and women so at least get your facts straight and do not be so stereotypical. am not a victim, do not get offended but my fellow handlers may.....

 

[Anachnoid]

W handle all the snakes you want,just don't ask the govt to make your belief a state religion and hold me to it. How would you like a high Anglican priest or RC priest to start throwing Holy Water over a public audience during a public benediction (probably create a big steam cloud) or censing the podium before the main speaker? Oh my those that hold hands around a flag pole every morning before school (are they worshipping the flag or perhaps Dr. Freud might suggest the length of the pole to which it is attached?) and their parents....I dont how'd they react. A benediction of silence would better serve public meetings. And sometimes if the meeting were conducted in total silence, more could be accomplished. But this is about free speech. ......bable, bable, bable, bable bable....in the name of Jesus, Amen. Adding that phrase after anything is much like adding a picture of the American Flag and the Star-Spangled Banner after the old porn films ( thank you Gary Leedes) ...it just makes everything alright.

 

[WebSpinner]

we have just heard from the democrat party of the 21st century......ain't it grand

 

[Eight Legger]

Come on, Spinner, I know you weren't absent the day they taught about the separation of church and state. That's not a political issue.

 

[WebSpinner]

Eight, am neither republican nor democrat but am only observing the regurgitation of every democrat plank and goal. however, you may wish to revisit the amendment, does not quite say anything about separation of church and state at all.

 

[Eight Legger]

I'm not beholden to either party myself, but I just don't think you can politicize the separation of church and state as being a Democratic issue. It's an American thing, not a Democrat or Republican thing. It's a hallmark of the Constitution that the Supreme Court has held up many times over.

Lacking that separation, the kind of scenario 'noid described would be perfectly permissible. No one is arguing against the freedom to choose and practice your own religion -- just don't do it in a government setting as part of an official government action, that's all.

Along these lines, here is an interesting case being brought against the Clemson football program, where it is alleged that that the coaches are actively helping to organize religious meetings among players. There is nothing wrong with the coaches and players having the same religion, but you can imagine how players who don't practice that religion -- or who practice none at all -- might feel left out or out of the loop if half the team is attending functions with the coaching staff.

I've seen this happen in high school before, where head coaches double as Young Life leaders, and the kids who were regular Young Life attendees were the ones who played, while the other kids did not. Now maybe it just so happened that the kids who played were better than the others, but you don't put yourself in a position like that as a coach. If the Clemson thing is like that, then it's wrong, plain and simple. Coach football and don't subject yourself to the perception that you're playing favorites.



Clemson

 

[WebSpinner]

what amendment is the hallmark of the constitution? if you know the amendment, read it and tell me that it is about the separation of church and state, just not there. the only times i have seen the issue debated on tv shows, it is most definitely a dem issue. the only point i was making, not about separation just about A spewing all the democrat party love issues in his discourse on here which there is nothing wrong with at all, just an observation.

 

[spider fan]

There is a huge difference in separation of church and state and the banning of religious discourse from the public square. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand that we use today: "Separation of church and state." The intent of that letter was to address the concerns of the Danbury Baptists about their ability to practice their faith as they saw fit. George Washington said: "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." - Speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, May 12, 1779.

Unfortunately today for some the mere mention of Jesus in a positive way in public discourse elicits a negative response while silence is maintained when members of faith groups other than Christianity openly talk about their respective deities. Too many have conflated the concept of the "separation of church and state" with the banning of public religious discourse.

Have a good Maundy Thursday.

 

[WebSpinner]

that is it in a nutshell, was never meant to ban prayer in schools, or any other government area, just that government, may not ban any religion one wishes to practice. heck, we have the president's prayer breakfasts, they pray in the legislature, our currency has GOD on it, there is no separation there. the entire notion of the constitution was to protect us, not from the church or any other entity but from the government. kings, despots, dictators, legislators (the government), good and bad, were the target, yet what is happening, the government is slowly usurping or at least trying to, our freedoms in small increments year by year, decade by decade. easy to discern that am a libertarian sans the drugs........

 

[Eight Legger]

No one has taken away your right to pray anywhere you want to. The point is that a teacher or government official should not say, Let's all join together in a prayer in the name of Jesus/Allah/Satan, etc. That's all. You want your freedoms and so do we all. You have the right to pray as long as it doesn't restrict my right and freedom not to. That's the point. And the government cannot be in the business of choosing one religion over the many others that Americans practice.

 

[WebSpinner]

if you wish not to pray, were not forced to pray at all and if you wished to pray your prayer, you could. government officials pray all the time in government facilities so what gives? the point is that the amendment never said anything about the separation of church or state even though you called it a hallmark amendment. actually not referring to prayer as one of the freedoms disappearing and know that you do not see that happening, have expressed that on here but feel you may have you eyes and ears shut a tad. there are tons of people out there who wish to micromanage our lives in all aspects and the more they get traction, the less free we are. just do not care for people who feel they are smarter than the rest of us and know what is best for us and then implement their ideas of what is right or good or FAIR.

 

[spiderman]

Originally posted by WebSpinner:
... just do not care for people who feel they are smarter than the rest of us and know what is best for us and then implement their ideas of what is right or good or FAIR.

exactly. so keep the moment of silence out of the schools instead of telling my kids that it's right or good or fair.
if a moment of silence is important to a family, whether for prayer or not, then I'm sure they'll find time at home for that moment at home.

 

[WebSpinner]

again, not saying we should have or not have, only that the amendment does not speak to separation of church and state only to keeping government from saying one cannot worship as he or she sees fit.

 

[Anachnoid]

Or requiring a particular practice of religion.
Eight-that has been happening since the FCA first began appearing in high schools. We had an assistant fb coach in high school who loved to profess his beliefs as he berated his players and his phys ed students. Players in FCA received playing preference. He would give pregame pep talks and bang on lockers and encourage his players to kill the other team and end his tirades "In the name of Jesus." We, the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, of my neighborhood referred to him as "little judas." I was in the receiving end of some his bs but he couldn't swim and I stopped playing fb before he could coach me, although I had interaction with him in other sporting events.
Spider-Man I don't know if they have a moment of silence in schools or not. I just view it as less offensive. I don't even know if the kids recite the pledge of allegiance every morning. I would support that recitation. There are some courts in Va that begin the morning sessions with the pledge.
Adm- the Danbury Baptists were as apprehensive of the American successor to the C of E as I am of some of the literalist interpretative mega churches of today. I was watching one of their productions and thought , Gracious, there more talk of love at old Leon Russell concerts than this production...and better music also.
WS I am happy to wear any and every label you give me, because it gives me an identity and confirms that "I am somebody."

 

[WebSpinner]

no name calling, no fingerpointing, nothing personal, just observations buddy, wear it any which way you wish.

 

[Eight Legger]

Bump. Donald Sterling made some pretty outlandish statements about black people this week, so I am revisiting this thread.

How would everyone weigh his comments in light of the original purpose of this thread?

* To use spider fan's original post, Sterling has what I would term "an opposing view" and this week has been "subjected to browbeating, name calling, and worse." Does that mean that political correctness has run amok in this case too? Is the public unjustified in criticizing his statements? Have his First Amendment rights been violated?

* "Why is it a threat to someone if someone else holds a different point of view?" Sterling holds a different point of view. Should we consider him a threat or not a threat to black people?



This post was edited on 4/29 12:22 PM by Eight Legger

 

[WebSpinner]

we have racists and bigots and lousy people in this country as do most countries. john kerry said some really stupid, ignorant, hurtful, comments about israel but the only thing the press is reporting about that is, the comments were made in private and should not have come out into public. is there some kind of double standard here, maybe, probably.......

 

[Eight Legger]

I wouldn't argue that point, but I was more interested in how people view Sterling's comments and the backlash in light of the original topic here.

Would it have been different had he said the same thing about gays? Paraplegics? Blind people? I guess that's what I'm getting at.

There are also some parallels here to the Queally thing, in that the comments he made were in a so-called "private" setting as well, just like Sterling's.

This post was edited on 4/29 1:01 PM by Eight Legger

 

[URPike]

It would only be different if a minority, gay, or handicapped person said it - then it would be a big story for a brief period of time. The fact that a rich white guy said it makes it a huge story and EVERYONE needs to make sure they are on record as being offended and appalled. What he said was ignorant and offensive for sure, but that is who this guy is and has been for a while - it shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm more interested in knowing why it is 100% ok to tape what someone is saying in a private conversation and release it to the world or why NFL players knocking around their girlfriends or threatening to blow up planes run their course in only a couple of news cycles. Those are the rules of today though and I guess rich white guys have it pretty good.

 

[WebSpinner]

sterling was saying who he was, queally was making jokes at a roast just like the president, any president, does at the annual journalist dinner. the real problem in this country is that there are way too many whiners, complainers, victims and added to that classes or groups of people who are set aside and treated differently. we should all be treated the same and would suggest that people get over being offended because there are people out there who are looney and who have thoughts and will say things that you do not like, just go about your business and quit letting them have their way with you. think the only investigation in this case should be how the naacp could make him their humanitarian of the year in like 2009 and again this year, though they have now rethought that one. why, since everyone is supposed to have known that this guy is a racist, would they be giving him hardware and certificates?

 

[Eight Legger]

Spinner, should Sterling be upset at the way he is being portrayed for expressing his opinion? He is being roundly criticized for something he believes. Is that fair?

That seemed to be the argument earlier in this thread from some as it related to gays, so I'm wondering where the line is drawn. Would it have been ok for Sterling to tell his mistress "Don't bring gay people to my games or be photographed with them" but it's not ok for him to tell her "Don't bring black people to my games or be photographed with them"? Or "Don't bring blind people to my games," etc.

I'm just trying to discern the differences. I don't personally see any difference, but I'm open to having a different viewpoint explained to me.

 

[spiderman]

I'm fine with villifying Sterling for his beliefs and what he says. Same for anyone. There are consequences for your actions. Fans have a right to show their displeasure with their wallets. So do advertisers.

But I have a problem with banning and forcing him to sell his team. Sure, he's a bad guy. But why does the NBA have a right to force a sale? Maybe one of you law guys can help me out on this. He bought this team. Doesn't matter when or for how much. You don't like what he said so you can force him out? That doesn't sound American to me. Maybe there are rules I don't know about when you buy a franchise? And why was this recording being made, and distributed? Why is that legal? This girl was not being discriminated against. She wasn't an employee. She could tell him to F off anytime she wanted and walk to the door like anyone else does when offended.

 

[Eight Legger]

There are standards and guidelines that apply to individual owners, as outlined in the NBA bylaws. There are one or two catch-all type clauses about character and doing or saying something that negatively impacts the game. Deadspin did something on it yesterday, I think.

Owning a sports franchise is different from owning a business, because your franchise is dependent upon the existence of the others in order to survive itself. It's different from other businesses that don't rely on conglomerates like that, so I guess that allows a little more flexibility in setting guidelines that allow forced sales to occur.

 

[iSpider]

The NBA controls all of its teams and I suspect that when you buy an NBA franchise that you do so subject to certain rules and regulations. Apparently, Sterling broke one of those rules. It is not a free speech issue at all. .

 

[WebSpinner]

don't care about the nba, or sterling or any of that so do not care what they do, though they are asking for trouble down the road and if an owner, my not vote to take his team.....what will they come after me for some time in the future.

my prob is that these same people, and you know who i mean, come after those who do not agree with them on quotas, oh they are racist, or gay marriage, oh, they are homophobes. there are differences but the nba has to decide what they wish to do with a racist owner, not my prob, have no interest at all.

 

[WebSpinner]

guess the housing discrimination suit against him was OK for the owners, the league, the commish, just his words count. think the girlfriend is sort of an employee retained to do his memoirs or something so she taped their conversations all the time, at least according to her. whether they are legal or not is up to courts if it goes to that point. the bottom line is that the league, the naacp, the commish, players, etc., were OK with all of the stuff before, not that i knew anything about it but just seems like they are fine with him being a racist until the stuff hits the fan and then they all have to run for the hills and cover their butts. such hypocrisy and selected reactions and why this entire matter is just bunk. this is exactly like the malaysian 370 coverage......