Mark Levin and Donald Sterling

[TheOldSchool]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sterling should have been careful about two things. One, the contracts he signed, it's all legal, and two, his actual thoughts on the race of those who make him the big bucks, who he'd so easily call *******.

 

[hazlnut]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

I'm sure there's something in the NBA's owner's contract that allows them to do what they are doing.

He's free to start his own basketball league, but you want to play under the NBA banner/logo, you agree to follow their rules an abide by their decisions.

All pro-sports contracts have morality and public image clauses. When you fuck up as bad as he did and continues to do, you give the NBA ample ammo to drop the hammer, legally speaking.

 

[The Rabbi]

As I've said, liberals listen to Rush, Hannity et al probably more than conservatives.

Anyway, that is exactly the point. Someone holds an unpopular viewpoint. Why is that reason to strip him of what he owns? What part of the nBA contract states no one can hold views or express them that cause outrage?
I suspect Sterling is preparing a lawsuit as we speak.

 

[TheOldSchool]

As I've said, liberals listen to Rush, Hannity et al probably more than conservatives.

Anyway, that is exactly the point. Someone holds an unpopular viewpoint. Why is that reason to strip him of what he owns? What part of the nBA contract states no one can hold views or express them that cause outrage?
I suspect Sterling is preparing a lawsuit as we speak.

Well if he holds on to the team it may lead to the biggest boycott in history!

Or maybe it'll be like Chick-Fil-A and the cons will flock in by the busload to show their support

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What's even more amazing, his wife who owns half of the team and did NOT have anything to do with the racist remarks can be stripped of her holdings.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

As I've said, liberals listen to Rush, Hannity et al probably more than conservatives.

Anyway, that is exactly the point. Someone holds an unpopular viewpoint. Why is that reason to strip him of what he owns? What part of the nBA contract states no one can hold views or express them that cause outrage?
I suspect Sterling is preparing a lawsuit as we speak.

Well if he holds on to the team it may lead to the biggest boycott in history!

Or maybe it'll be like Chick-Fil-A and the cons will flock in by the busload to show their support

In the past, actually that would likely happen. However today with the McCarthyistic witch hunt that is going on, I don't think there's anyone who would want to take a chance on being ruined by these extremeists.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Also, if Sterling or his wife somehow ended up retaining the team, there would no doubt be a boycott, and I would bet money that the "new" Black Panthers would show up and threaten anyone trying to watch a game.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Also, if Sterling or his wife somehow ended up retaining the team, there would no doubt be a boycott, and I would bet money that the "new" Black Panthers would show up and threaten anyone trying to watch a game.

Well since the Bundy Militia's don't have jobs they need to get to they can go and defend the cons bussing themselves in for the chance to throw money at Sterling and his starless, winless Clippers team of 2015

 

[tinydancer]

Also, if Sterling or his wife somehow ended up retaining the team, there would no doubt be a boycott, and I would bet money that the "new" Black Panthers would show up and threaten anyone trying to watch a game.

Glad you put "new" in brackets. The old guys were actually pretty cool. But I'm from those days when things were real.

 

[tinydancer]

Also, if Sterling or his wife somehow ended up retaining the team, there would no doubt be a boycott, and I would bet money that the "new" Black Panthers would show up and threaten anyone trying to watch a game.

Well since the Bundy Militia's don't have jobs they need to get to they can go and defend the cons bussing themselves in for the chance to throw money at Sterling and his starless, winless Clippers team of 2015

You don't have a clue what you are talking about but you are fun to watch.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Sterling should have been careful about two things. One, the contracts he signed, it's all legal, and two, his actual thoughts on the race of those who make him the big bucks, who he'd so easily call *******.

As easily as you do?

 

[tinydancer]

Bundy militias and conservatives and Sterling.

You cannot make this shit up but libs are connecting some bizzarro dots.

 

[Rocko]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

The NBA is not stripping him of ownership. The NBA is forcing him to sell, which it is allowed to do as according to the constitutionally bylaws.

 

[DiamondDave]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

The NBA is not stripping him of ownership. The NBA is forcing him to sell, which it is allowed to do as according to the constitutionally bylaws.

I would actually like to see that bylaw cited, verbatim

 

[The Rabbi]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

The NBA is not stripping him of ownership. The NBA is forcing him to sell, which it is allowed to do as according to the constitutionally bylaws.

I would actually like to see that bylaw cited, verbatim

Others are asking the same. This from a quicj search:

While no article in the NBA's constitution addresses the Sterling incident specifically, Article 13(d) is a catch-all violation.

That article states an owner's may be terminated if the person fails or refuses "to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely."

Donald Sterling signed moral, ethical contracts with NBA

You would think someone would have to show actual damage to the members, players etc before they could use that.
It will make a dandy court case. Sterling didnt get to where he is by being stupid or careless.

 

[Plasmaball]

i feel the NBA has the right to do what they did to sterling, but sterling has the right to sue the ever living shit out of that woman who recorded him. She should be brought up on charges. Beyond that i feel nothing for sterling. Dude cant even own up to his own words.

 

[Katzndogz]

The contract under which Sterling obtained his ownership interest is 33 years old. It's doubtful that it mentions homosexuality. The bylaws that spell out termination of an owners interest say nothing about personal opinions.

If you are buying a car and engage in a vicious racist rant should your car be repossessed? How about having your home overrun to force you out? How far should this be taken?

 

[The Rabbi]

i feel the NBA has the right to do what they did to sterling, but sterling has the right to sue the ever living shit out of that woman who recorded him. She should be brought up on charges. Beyond that i feel nothing for sterling. Dude cant even own up to his own words.

Why do you "feel" that? Is it just a vibe you get?
Because in the real world things like that are determined by contract language, case law and statute.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

NBA teams are not "privately owned entities". They're franchises. It's all laid out in the paperwork Sterling signed.