The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Recorded making racial remarks to his girlfriend.  The latest in a long line of nasty stuff he's done since taking over as Clippers owner.  Is this the end for him?

Doubt it. He's survived several settlements dealing with racial discrimination. I just feel sorry for the players & coaches who have to answer for him.

I think this guy is going to get a lot of pressure from the NBA to sell his team and will likely be suspended from dealing with the operations.

The thing that gets me, didn't he notice his girlfriend is a minority? How does someone be a part time racisit? I don't understand.

If you read the whole conversation, it's really bizarre.  It's like he feels that the world treats you differently for associating with blacks, so he tries not to and those around him. It's still racist, but not in the traditional, over the top sense, which is why his girlfriend is black and I think he even said she can sleep with black people. It's just really weird.

His girlfriend is of mixed race, but his concern was that if she hung out with black people, she would be presumed to be black (instead of Latina).  That was what he found unacceptable.

That's the big problem here: not just that he's racist, but that he is specifically racist against black people.  In the NHL, that's a PR issue; in the NBA, that's a labor issue.  If black players decide not to play for an owner that despises them, the Clippers would probably have to contract.

That won't happen and they can't even legally take his team away, but they can pressure him to sell at a ridiculous price that will just make him wealthier.

Not saying he isn't an asshole, because he is, but at it's core, this is just a very old racist with a history of doing racist things saying more racist things. Blake Griffin can still dunk regardless of what his team owner feels about his skin color and multi-millionaire athletes will not risk their paychecks for some moral stance.

They can't force him to sell, but they also can't force players to sign there (outside of the draft).  They also can't force coaches to sign there.  And yeah, someone will always be willing to take a paycheck... but if the Clips are running a full D-League team out there and losing 80 games a year, how many seasons do you think the league office would let that continue?

But this is academic at this point.  Sterling will most likely have a Come to Jesus moment where he will pay some sort of financial penalty for saying out loud what he thinks (a "voluntary" donation to the NAACP, or paying for some sort of multicultural program... anything that just involves him signing a check and moving on with his life), and the world will keep on spinning.

Free Agent All-Star: "I refuse to play for the Clippers".
Sterling: "Here is $10 Million more per season than anyone else is offering".
Free Agent All-Star: "Donald Sterling is a changed man and praise Jesus".

Besides, Paul and Griffin have contracts that run a few more years. In a perfect world, this guy would be gone tomorrow, but he will be around and nothing will change. If he sells, he sells to his wife in some convoluted financial scheme where he is still in charge and still eye browing black people who sit closer than the 10th row at his games. Because he is a dick.

The NBA is not MLB; you cannot simply buy off players by offering them more than anyone else, because of the limitations on max contracts.  A free agent all-star will be able to get a max contract from several teams not named the Clippers.

Now, as I said, if Donald Sterling wants to offer max contracts to the Michael Beasleys of the league, then yeah, they'll take them... and LAC would be losing 70+ games each season.

Anti-freemarket NBA, God bless you.

Lost in all of this is the players supposedly being distracted today by their owner's comments. Why would Chris Paul give a shit what some 80 year old he probably met 6 times says? Does it change his accomplishments or salary or talent? No, it's just another asshole saying racist things. There are no victims here and people need to stop pretending they are butthurt because of this douche. You don't get upset when an asshole says something, you get hurt when a loved one does. No one loved Sterling.

Anti-fair playing field MLB, eat shit and die...

Here's a picture of Chris Paul (and the rest of the Clippers) "not giving a shit" by throwing their Clippers gear on the center of the floor and warming up in inside-out shootaround jerseys:

(http://assets3.sportsnet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/clippers_portest-640x360.jpg)

For the majority of their history, excluding the most recent few years.

They then played in their normal jerseys to not draw a fine. Incredible statement by those guys before they played like total horseshit and let themselves get distracted like little schoolgirls.

I am not saying a black man should be thrilled when someone is racist to them, but it has to be put into context. Do they REALLY give a shit what some old racist with a history of racism thinks about them? Of course they don't, which is why they signed contracts to be there. Everyone knows Sterling is racist, he has had lawsuits up the ass about it by the NBA and in his personal business dealings. It only bothers them now because the media is involved due to his prostitute recording his racist ramblings.

They had no problem taking a racist's money before and shaking his hand and taking pictures with him, why have that problem now? Because they have to due to the media.

Well, yes, they did continue with a very important part of their career (trying to win a championship).  Do you think the refs would have allowed the game to be played with players having non-visible numbers?

So I guess this whole thing is their fault?

Players Want "Maximum" Punishment For Sterling, But What Can The NBA Do? (http://deadspin.com/players-want-maximum-punishment-for-sterling-but-wha-1568612742)

"The players asked this particular question: They want to know within the bylaws and the constitution, what are the maximum sanctions that are available for the commissioner to mete out? That's what we're trying to understand, and that is what the players want. And if it allows a player to voice an opinion where a commissioner and owners make a decision to remove somebody, then that's certainly what the players would like to see."

Why do you keep insisting that the players don't care, even as the players themselves repeatedly make it clear that they care a great deal?  If the players don't actually care about this, why are the Miami Heat also wearing inside-out warmups (http://deadspin.com/heat-echo-clippers-halfcourt-protest-equipment-guy-pic-1568999562)?  Exciting new fashion trend?

I suppose if they really cared, they would go back in time and unsign their contracts?

Because now there is recorded audio of Sterling explicitly detailing his feelings about the inferiority of blacks to his plausibly-Latina girlfriend.

Not sure why this is even an issue. Were these statements public or private? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether you agree with it or not. If the guy is of the opinion that "blacks are inferior", good for him. Why should anyone care? Is his opinion and active discrimination based on ethnicity the same thing? I think not. If the players don't like it, they can play like shit in protest or quit. As far as the jerseys inside out in protest thing goes, the owner of the team should make a rule against it ASAP. Actually, the league should make a rule against it and fine and/or suspend players for it. 

This guy is an old racist, and deserves what he gets, but his gold digging mistress completely baited him and set him up. I listened to the audio yesterday and you can for sure tell she's baiting him.  She's on a little less scum bag level than what he's on.

Everyone also is entitled to have their opinion about his opinion. See how that works? It is hypocritical to think that one person is allowed an opinion without others being able to speak up. We've covered this before so I don't know why you stick to this. Yes, he can feel how he wants but he has to expect for there to be a reaction.

For sure. She's a gold digger that has gotten what she can now that the wife is trying to sue her.

Yes they can.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-nba-could-deliver-knockout-blow-to-donald-sterling-093958859.html

Several league officials – including owners and Board of Governors members – told Yahoo Sports they believe Silver has been studying the nuclear option on Sterling: a provision in the NBA's bylaws that would allow Silver to summon a vote of league owners to strip Sterling of his ownership. The NBA would run the Clippers until the team could be sold.

I have a problem with the league taking away the franchise or fining him for making unpopular comments in private that were then leaked. 

I don't have a problem with fans refusing to buy tickets to the game or players protesting the owner, or players being less willing to sign as free agents, or players purposefully tanking the game to the point it becomes so unprofitable that Sterling has no choice but to sell or go bankrupt. 

Allowing a franchise to take way an owners business because of private statements that the franchise disagrees with is problematic.

For those who feel the league ought have the right to take away the franchise...would you feel the same if the following was the case:

Person buys a Chick-fil-A franchise.  Spends plenty of money developing it into thriving business.  Outwardly he pretends to be a Christian, goes to church, donates money to Operation rescue etc, has a nativity in his restaurant on xmas.    In a private conversation with his wife he mentions he is in fact an atheist and just pretends to believe in christ because it is good for business.  Unbeknownst to him his wife tape records the conversation.   Years later while going thru a messy divorce his wife releases the tape the following week Chick-fil demands that he cease operating the restaurant. 

Because if you would allow the NBA to take away Sterling's business you have to allow Chick-fil the same right. 

^ This is a bad analogy, which is so common for this site.

The NBA is a totally different situation and being a racist, with a history of high-profile racism, including lawsuits and settlements vs. being an atheist are totally different.  But, especially the NBA is different.  Chik-Fil-A isn't a managed monopoly with revenue sharing -- the NBA is.

The NBA probably won't make him sell, but they can suspend him indefinitely and make it miserable to be an owner until he leaves willingly.

The only problem with my analogy is that the Atheists could open an KFC the next day instead, whereas the business owner couldn't transfer his businesses into something else because as you said its a monopoly. 

^^^ There is another major problem with your anology. Chick-fil-A requires their operators be a full time hand on owner. They are not to have any other business operations. Donald Sterling is not a one business person.

^^^ I am not sure how that is relevant.

Chik Fil-A doesn't have revenue sharing.  If the Clippers operate at a loss, they still get paid by the NBA's other teams and contracts.  That's how the Clippers survived for decades when they were negligent already and had no support.

The privacy of these comments is irrelevant; "I didn't want the public to know what I think!" is not any sort of excuse.

Due to the nature of the NBA, if Sterling runs the Clippers into the ground, it affects the rest of the teams.  There is already a precedent: Ted Stepien was essentially forced to sell the Cavaliers because he was repeatedly trading away his first-round picks so he wouldn't have to pay them the higher salaries (the league actually instituted the Ted Stepien rule (http://basketball.about.com/od/collegebasketballglossary/g/ted-stepien-rule.htm) prohibiting teams from trading first-round picks in successive seasons).

Sterling's actions have already caused significant blowback from both players and coaches, and would almost certainly result in a significant competitive disadvantage to that team if unaddressed.  If the league office can force out Ted Stepien, why not Donald Sterling?

That's his own fault for opening a franchise of an openly theocratic restaurant.  I have no problem with him losing his franchisee rights, particularly since (in your example) he was falsely pretending to be religious solely for the purpose of pandering.

Ultimately, though, your hypothetical scenario is a smokescreen.  Allow me to demonstrate:  suppose the Chick-Fil-A franchisee had, as a private citizen, taken out an advertisement in the LA Times saying that giving women the vote was a mistake and that allowing their inferior intellect into the workforce caused our economic problems.  Or maybe an advertisement saying that The Jew is undermining our society and that the nations of the world should pass laws providing for their extermination.

Do you still support his right to speak his mind without losing his franchise license?
No?
Then your issue is really that you don't think what Sterling said is bad enough to warrant his expulsion.

He was fined $5M and suspended indefinitely. -- reported by ESPN


Update: ESPN reports 2.5M fine and lifetime ban.

suspended from what?  Owning the team?  A suspension for an owner is laughable.

It is relevant in the fact that I would feel more sorry for a person being stripped of their only means of income rather than a person operating multiple businesses. You asked how I would feel and this contributes to how I would feel. You said the Chick-fil-A operator could open a KFC the next day but an NBA owner is locked out of business. The truth is the Chick-fil-A operator is completely out of their revenue stream while the NBA owner is already making money on other businesses.

I also would feel more sympathetic to someone being stripped of their business for religous (or lack of religous) beliefs than I do racism. It is not an apples to apples comparison in any way and has been discussed here before I imagine.

Suspended from operations (and likely attending games or visiting the offices). Granted some owners could be completely hands off but these guys do make business decisions for their organizations. Who hires the front office personnel? Team owners.

The privacy is relevant. 

A parent who tells his/her own children if they marry someone of a different race then they will be written out of the will, is quite a bit different than someone who want to amend the constitution to reverse Loving v. Texas.

Also their is difference between a person telling their own child or spouse not to hang out with "the wrong crowd" and discriminating against them in the work place. 

I am willing to bet in almost every household comments have been made at the dinner table in private that would be considered racist/sexist/etc and illegal if made in a workplace.

Private comments made in public places are public comments.  If you don't want to be overheard, speak in PRIVATE.

A mother speaking to her child AT HOME is very different than the same conversation happening in a crowded restaurant.

He wasn't overheard, he was recorded by the person he was speaking to. 

What do you think the odds are Al Sharpton et. al. having made equally racist comments about "whitey?"

Why do we have to expect a reaction? Apparently everyone already knew he was a racist from prior incidents. So why is this a surprise? Shouldn't the reaction already have happened? We all know that racists exist, some advertise it and some hide it. But they still exist, and nothing is ever, ever, ever going to change it. So therefore, why should we expect a reaction? And the even better question is what is that reaction going to accomplish?

Of course it's relevant. It was a private conversation. Where did the conversation take place? If it took place in LA, then the person recording the conversation would need his consent since California is a Two Party state.

 When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?

Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people.  In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.

The recordings seem to be illegal to begin with. Furthermore, since it is only audio and not video, you have to prove that the voice on the recordings is actually his and that they haven't been doctored or altered.

He wasn't overheard by a person in a public place. He was recorded in a private conversation, which is illegal in the state of California. He should press charges and sue the individual for damages. If he didn't explicitly give consent then he should win. This is nothing but another leftist witch hunt.

You're making a circular argument; the only way the will-exclusion would be "more acceptable" is if it wasn't publicly known.

To be more specific: any ridiculously racist position is "perfectly fine" when kept private, precisely because the public is unaware of it.  How can you possibly have a public backlash for something that the public doesn't know about?

Furthermore: this exact scenario is PRECISELY AN EXAMPLE of a private citizen telling his girlfriend that he doesn't approve of her publicly fraternizing with blacks, and you can see the blowback.  How could it possibly have been increased if he took out an ad?

I would also like you to explain why it would be wrong to take Sterling's team for being a racist (but only in private), but OK to take his team if he's open about it and took out an ad stating as such.  He's still a racist in both scenarios; is he allowed to have his own beliefs, or not?

If "the wrong crowd" is defined as "the wrong race," and you are an employer, it is impossible to believe that you would not discriminate against people of that race in your workplace.  Sterling's business history certainly confirms this suspicion.

I am willing to bet that millions of people have cheated on their significant others.  That doesn't change the fact that there are repercussions when you get caught.

He's a piece of crap but I was curious about the recordings as well. Seems to me she will face some sort of liable lawsuit or something but it really has no bearing on public opinion. In the eyes of the public this guy is public enemy number one to the NBA and detrimental to the league. they have no choice but to get rid of him any way they can.

The best thing Sterling can do is say "yes I am a racist, I am sorry for those I hurt, and have entered program X to overcome my bigotry. I am donating 1 billion dollars to the African charity of   x to further the education and health of black america." outside of that he is screwed in the NBA world as much as Zimmerman.

I have made no statement as to the legality of the recordings or Sterling's avenues for redressing any civil tort he may have suffered.  I do, however, find it incredibly convenient that you seem to be against the idea of leaked communications, and that we should completely ignore the content of any illicitly-gained communication.  Can I presume that your strict code of morality also applies to communications that are more convenient to your political worldview?

Actually, I had no idea about this guys history and I bet most people didn't either.

So basically, we shouldn't expect a reaction from you but yet you have one. Isn't it pointless to respond to this thread? What are you going to accomplish by doing so?

What an easy game to play.

So, only liberals are against his position? Man you should have watch O'Reilly and several other Fox shows last night. Racism is not a liberal or conservative position ( except maybe for Tea Partiers).

There is nothing libelous.  She isn't saying things about him.  He's saying them about himself.  And for it to be libel, it needs to be 1) written, 2) damaging, and 3) false.

It's illegally recorded and then released to the public to purposely discredit him. Is that not liable?

One cannot "lead" a witness. Without knowing the full context of the conversation I'd still bet she set set him up in more ways than one.

Don't get me wrong he is a dirt bag but I think she has some dirty hands.

No.  It is not libel. 

Libel has to be written by someone else, damaging, and false.

I too am wondering about the legality of the recordings. The guy is a grade A asshat no doubt about it and sure he deserves every bit of the punishment being handed down. I am now wondering if the precedence set forth in this case will be the norm gong forward. We are all guilty in one way or another of having a private, less than 10 minute, conversation with someone that if recorded could land us in hot water (and no not just specific to racism). So I wonder if for example Lebron says something about hating whites or that women are not equals or whatever, which gets recorded and published. Does Silver now have to impose a lifetime ban on Lebron? Plenty of players have made homophobic remarks in the past so are those players looking at lifetime bans going forward because it is a black eye for the league? Just food for thought!!!!!

Any personal racist or prejudice position is perfectly fine in the United States. At best, you or I may disagree with it, nothing more. Conversely, I can dislike or hate anyone I want to and there is nothing anyone else can do about it. Firing, fining, or suspending business people isn't going to change anything ever. People will still be racist.
The recordings were illegal, simple as that. It has nothing to do with me, I didn't create the laws. I do find it funny that people are more focused on someone's perfectly legal opinion in a private conversation and not with enforcing the laws that were broken.

Incorrect.  I may elect not to do business with (or to actively boycott) people that espouse such positions, or I may elect to vote them out of office, or I may campaign for them to be fired (as appropriate).

You are making the common mistake of conflating free speech for which the government will not arrest you with speech without consequences.  Sterling's speech, like most anyone else's, has consequences.

You're rather obviously wrong; it does change things.  60 years ago, George Marshall steadfastly refused to integrate the Redskins.  Such an action would be financial suicide today.  Progress continues to be made.

Again, no one is claiming that the government should arrest Sterling, so there's no need to bring up the red herring about his perfectly legal opinion.  And if he wants to sue his (ex-?)girlfriend, more power to him.  Maybe he can sue her for the millions of dollars in profits that he'll no longer be earning from his black players after he's forced to sell the team.

His opinion is not acceptable to society, and you are seeing capitalism at work: his business partners have decided that he is an unwanted liability, and they are rapidly moving to disentangle themselves from him.

Aren't you normally in favor of the free market?  Why aren't you praising capitalism in this case?

It's the "make them pay" politically correct society we live in. There is nothing that they can do to 99.9% of the racists out there, so lets just pick on the few that we can affect in some way to "make them pay".  Donald Sterling deserves whatever the fans, players, and general public hand down, nothing more. The guy was already a know racist and had a private conversation with someone who set him up illegally. Given the facts, the NBA should stay out of it.

How dare you admit that? Lol ... I always love it when people get into trouble and everyone else acts as if they do no wrong.  

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Sterling is an asshole, the players are ninnies for faking outrage now that the cameras are on them and somehow James Dolan still has a team for doing far worse shit than Sterling's bigotry.

I wonder if Sterling will sue his hooker for leaking that audiotape of his hysterical racist viewpoints.

She's retained an attorney.  I'm not surprised one bit

Yes I often forget how perfect everyone else on this planet is!!!!!  ;)

Quick recap from various posters:

1.  Debate over racism and reverse racism.
2.  The bible is fiction.
3.  Political party debate.
4.  Morality of homosexuality.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION!  YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT GUNS I CAN HAVE! 

There, I think we have every polarizing topic that people should never discuss while drinking....and all in the same thread!

You know who wants our guns? The Lizard people that run this country. OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!

There, NOW I think we got everyone.

You forgot about Tebow being a real NFL QB. Just saying.

I will assume from this statement that you would have no problem if the criminal in question is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and receives the maximum penalty allowed by law and also a civil judgement for damages, lost income, and punitive.

i don't think anything sterling did in this case is criminal .. it's just bigoted and shameful ..

recording someone without their consent in California is criminal ..  .. so if there's proof of a criminal act there . .then yes .. they should prosecute or sue or whatever else you mentioned in your paragraph above ..

apples and oranges ?

I mean, if he wants to sue her for 2 billion dollars (or whatever), fine with me?  Realistically speaking, the best he could do is get back the money he gave her, but if she broke the law, then he is entitled to pursue appropriate legal action.

That being said, according to Bill Simmons (http://grantland.com/features/sterlings-fold/):

- there are more than 100 hours of these tapes
- Sterling asked his assistant/girlfriend to record them (which means two-party consent was given)

If Simmons' story is true, then Sterling likely has no recourse.  I am unaware of any California law that prevents release of recordings you have consented to (much less requested).

I would be very surprised if Sterling asked anyone to record him being racist and stupid. That being said, he still didn't give permission for it to be leaked to the press, so she is still liable. Like you said, guess she will have to give back all the hooker money he gave her.

The trickier issue is that while in the end he will very likely sell the team, he can fight this in court for a long time. Sterling was a lawyer before he made his fortune being despicable to minorities in housing developments and he loves court battles. The NBA will have to prove how these videotapes and only these videotapes are legitimate grounds for expulsion from the league while acts by the OTHER owners is okay. First name that pops up is James Dolan of the Knicks, another piece of garbage. Is being racist with words worse than what Dolan has done? If not, how can they take away the team?

It's probably going to get ugly if the owners all take a stand and boot him. He has known many of them for decades, I would be shocked if they were all squeaky clean.

Well, when someone has recorded you for many, many hours, sometimes you get caught off guard and say things that you might not think too much about beforehand.  (This is basically the mechanism behind most embarrassing documentaries.)  As far as suing her because the tape got out, he would first have to prove that she intentionally leaked it.  At that point, his chances of winning would be approximately the same as every person that's tried to sue over a sex tape.

As far as how he can fight, the NBA can rather easily stop that: don't schedule the Clippers against any other NBA team until he sells them.  Who will the Clippers play, the Washington Generals?

Don't forget the criminal charges and jail time. Also, I would assume that he could get the money back he gave her, his fine from the NBA, and lost income from future team revenue. Illegal activity by said party cost him all of that. Punitive damages wouldn't be out of the question as far as I'm concerned.
100 hours of recordings mean nothing. They could still all be illegal. I would also argue that unless Sterling's supposed consent to be recorded was on paper, on tape, or witnessed by someone other than the person doing the recording, there is no way to prove it.Well if she recorded it illegally then the logical conclusion is that it was to release to the media. TMZ doesn't just get thing out of thin air

It is not often that I agree with Newt on much,  But I like his idea of having the team go IPO. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/gingrich-sell-clippers-public/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

If you're asking me if it's OK that the NAACP exists, guilty as charged.

I also don't have a problem with something like historically black colleges, but those colleges admit people of any race.

Well, yes.  Didn't I just say that I would be receptive to the problems of the oppressed white minority in China?  Context matters.

Saying "I try to do what I can to encourage and help people of [my race] succeed in this country" has a very different meaning when your race is the overwhelming majority, and to pretend otherwise is actively denying reality... not unlike the people who insisted that affirmative action was never needed in the first place (because once the Civil Rights Act was passed, everyone is now equal and racism is solved).

That said, I don't personally subscribe to that philosophy; as I have said many times, I think assistance should be focused on those who face socioeconomic disadvantages in this country.  Unfortunately, while it is frowned upon to be openly racist politically, attacking the poor is not only politically permissible, it's celebrated.

Rape happens all over the world?  I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Why not sue her for one zillion dollars?  Any money this woman has almost entirely came from Sterling anyway.

There's a rather easy way to prove it: any recording where Sterling acknowledges that he is aware the recording is active.

You're kind of dancing around the question. What about an all black basketball league like the clown from the Knicks was screaming for, or Ms Black America, Black Entertainment Television, Black spring break and other assorted black groups. Do you think those things are A-OK too?
So racist comments and bashing are not ok when directed at a minority by the majority, but they are ok as long as it's directed toward the overwhelming majority by a minority?
 
You said that rape, slavery, and racism aren't accepted today. Africa is one of the world leaders in rape and slavery and have been for years. They haven't fixed the problem, nor are they ever going to. So I guess that it is accepted in some places and a way of life.
No, not a zillion. Just what he's lost due to her illegal activities. Garnish her wages for the rest of her natural life. Oh yeah, don't forget the jail time and fines on the criminal side.

Also, if he acknowledged being recorded 6 months ago on a recording doesn't mean that he consented to continuous recording of every conversation. I would assume that he would have to acknowledge consent for each and every conversation.

Didn't I just say that I approved of the existence of a group called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?  Not sure why you need further clarification, but sure, I also condone the existence of BET.

As for whether someone should be allowed to make an all-black basketball league, or an all-Hispanic soccer league, or an all-white hockey league?  Have at it.  Capitalism would solve that issue rather quickly (exactly as it is doing in the NBA right now, which you are currently complaining about).

There is no blanket exception, if that's what you're looking for.  But yes, it is more acceptable for minority groups to call for solidarity and unified action than for majority groups to do so.

Slavery and rape (particularly: of conquered peoples) were legal 2000+ years ago.
Please cite your evidence as to your claims of legalized rape and slavery in Africa today.
Thanks.

So in your version of reality, when your boss tells you to start recording his statement, you should insist on new written or recorded consent for each individual session?

If the NBA were to take that action, Sterling wouldn't even flinch. He is obviously a sad, disgusting human who would rather see the franchise never play another game than to just sell without making a fortune and getting his pound of flesh. I don't think it would cost him anything either. If the NBA says they can't play, then is he legally responsible for paying salaries?

As I (a non-lawyer) see it, it would work one of two ways:

a) his players are contractually bound to the Clippers and could not sign with another NBA team, which means that he is contractually bound to pay them (to play against whatever team he can get lined up, if any)

or

b) he is not required to pay them, and they are free to sign with another team, in which case, please welcome your new Anaheim Royals/Seattle Supersonics/whatever

Interesting development on the source of the leak:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10869537/los-angeles-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-troubled-reign-approaches-inglorious-end

"Sterling lavished gifts on Stiviano over their four-year relationship, including a 2013 Range Rover, a 2012 Ferrari and two Bentleys. He paid her rent. He bought her jewelry. And, on March 7 of this year, Sterling's wife, Shelly Sterling, sued her to get it all back.

Stiviano lawyered up. Her attorneys filed a response to the civil suit, asking that the case be dismissed on April 21. Instead, Shelly Sterling's attorneys requested that Stiviano turn over all tapes and recordings made of herself and Sterling. The law compelled her to do so.

Four days later, the tapes surfaced publicly on TMZ."

I wonder... can Sterling sue his wife for damages?

Hell hath no fury...

This is glorious. A racist, his evil wife and a hooker suing each other and soon the NBA. Couldn't have happened to a nicer piece of garbage.

So in other words you support segregation. But only when the minorities are the ones doing the segregating. Sounds kind of racist to me.
So in other words you think that double standards are appropriate for people that claim that they only want equality. Sounds more like they want superiority. Sounds hypocritical to me.
Who said legal? You claimed that things like rape and slavery weren't accepted today. If they weren't accepted in Africa, then they would have been eradicated by now. It won't ever happen there, so therefore they accept it as day to day reality of life there.
So if I gave consent for a bill collector to record my conversation last August. Then are you saying that they don't need consent to record the conversation that we had yesterday? I could be wrong, but legally I would consider each conversation separate as far as consent goes.

Did you miss "all-white hockey league" in there?

Hey, you know another double standard I'm in favor of?  People who make less money should pay a lower percentage of that money in taxes.

Hypocrisy, I know!

They are not accepted, which is why they are illegal.  This is in contrast to 2000+ years ago, when they were very much legal (in the appropriate circumstance).

I guess this explains how we eradicated rape and murder in America.

Is your bill collector your employer?  Did your employer give you a directive to start recording his conversations?

If Sterling tells his employee to record his conversations, do you seriously expect her to tell him, "Not until I have a signed release, and I will need one for every individual time I turn on this recorder"?

Will self admitted racist Micheal Jordan be forced to sell his interest in the Hornets?

No. Because he's a reformed self admitted racist. And how is he associated with the Hornets?

After the New Orleans Hornets became the New Orleans Pelicans, the Bobcats (the team Jordan owns) petitioned the NBA to re-gain the rights to the Hornets logo and colors.  The Charlotte Bobcats have played their last game; next season, they will be called the Charlotte Hornets.

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer just won the bidding for the Clippers at $2 Billion.

The Bucks just sold for $500+ Million. To say he overpaid would be an understatement. Sterling probably didn't want a long legal battle, as his only probable victory would be taking a few other owners down with him. So, he decided to take the ridiculous offer.

NBA wins. Sterling wins. Ballmer probably loses if he actually thinks he will ever recoup this.

Milwaukee <<<<< Los Angeles

Of course, and by a very large amount. However, 4 times the value? The Yankees are the most valued franchise in American sports at $2.5 Billion, the Cowboys are 2nd at $2.3 Billion.

To put it in a strictly NBA perspective, the Knicks are the highest valued team in the league at $1.4 Billion as of January 2014. The Los Angeles Clippers just got sold for $2 Billion. That is laughably out of whack. The new owner will never recoup his investment, so I hope he is just a huge fan and wants to make the team a winner like Cuban.

Cowherd made a good point about this the other day.  The super wealthy don't always have the same priorities as a traditional investor.  Sometimes, they're just looking for a place to park their money.  So, if this guy is not going to sell the team for 50 years, he's going to get a good return on his investment, whether he pays market value or above.

It's not his last $2 Billion, so he won't miss it. With what the franchise is ACTUALLY worth and years of profits, the loss won't be too bad when he dies or sells. He probably just sees it as the cost of being a member of an exclusive club. Not too many sports franchises for sale.

Still, if the Clippers are worth $2 Billion, the Knicks are worth $4 Billion.

It is not a done deal. He probably overpaid to try and ensure he can move the team to Seattle, which is what he really wants.

That right there will decrease the value of the team. Seattle doesn't have the TV market that L.A. does.

I read in a few articles that the sale was conditional on him NOT moving the team to Seattle.

Oh, the NBA has now decided that when an owner buys a team and says they won't move it, that means something?

Someone should tell that to Clay Bennett.

I think they actually got that in writing this time due to passed incidents.

The guy also paid in cash, which is gangsta.

$2 billion in cash? That is pretty fucking gangsta. I wonder how many pallets of greenery that is?

I don't foresee an actual cash transaction (and he hasn't paid since it still isn't finalized yet). He isn't going to have to borrow the money, but I don't see Brinks pulling up with several trucks while they do this deal.

Couple of things I head over the weekend. Sterling took some bi-racial kids to a black church over the weekend and Stiviano was beat up by two racists white men.

Which of the following answers best explains why Sterling took these kids to Church:

1) So they could all bask in the warm & fuzzy glow of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ
2) So Sterling could bask in the warm & fuzzy glow of some positive public relations
   (while the bi-racial kids took turns fetching more coffee for Sterling, and perhaps some snacks to nosh on during the sermon)
3) The bi-racial kids looked mostly white to Sterling, so what's the big deal?

^^^^ I was more impressed he went to a black church ... staged or not ... LOL.

I don't think the term racist is as black and white as some people want to make it out.  (pun intended).

For example my parents would have been extremely pissed if any of us had dated or married a black person.  That doesn't mean that they want to bring back the Jim Crowe laws or disagree with the S.Ct in Loving v. Texas. 

Sterling didn't want is mistress dating black folks.  (never mind the lack of morals on the whole fidelity issue) This isn't the same as being unwilling to associate with blacks. 

I didn't say it was. I was meaning in the fact he isn't so popular amongst the black community at the moment.

That is not accurate.  He did not want her to be seen associating with them, particularly at Clippers games.  He said he didn't care if she had sex with them.

So his specific issue was with public association with blacks; both with how it would affect public perception of her, and how that would affect public perception of him.

Sterling is basically bi-polar, because while his housing discrimination is well known, he has actually helped the black community out a ton with charity work and donations. The Lifetime Achievement Award the NAACP backed out of giving him was going to be his SECOND.

I can only describe him as a good hearted piece of garbage.