Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You cant be put in jail for saying what you want to. I think thats a great reason.
Why would I remove the right to free speech? Wouldn't it be much easier to allow the freedom but have individuals deal with the consequences?
Sorta like what Sterling is going through now.
I understand.
Punish hate with hate. Punish anyone who expresses an idea you disagree with to the highest extreme you can. Since you are not allowed by law to attack them physically, attack their livelyhood. Take from them everything you are capable of taking from them under the law and call it just consequence.
There is no hypocrisy in that at all.
Is the old coot actually going to be harmed by all this? Probably not. He's still going to rich as hell.
But it isn't for lack of trying.
I get it.
You are emotional about this and not thinking straight. You do something you deal with the consequences. You want to be a racist then what ever happens to you is your fault. Stop whining about that.
Depending on the degree I am affected by your actions you better damn well be prepared to suffer whatever consequences I can bring. You dont get to run around in life saying and doing things without dealing with consequences.
Of course there is no hypocrisy in that. You are free to penalize me for my actions to whatever extent you can. I can accept that and deal with whatever consequences come with it.
The old coot is already harmed by this. He already had money. Once you amass that amount of assets you always know how to get it back. He could lose everything and know how to make it back. Whats hurting him is he will no longer be able to own a stable full of professional Black athletes.
How could he force her if not legally?You're confused. Power doesn't have to be written in a bylaw. Show me where the definition of power has to be written down anywhere?
The commissioner has no legal way to force the sale and if Sterling had not been ruled incompetent, it would have had to go to a vote of the owners, and 23 of the owners would of had to vote to oust him.
The owners not Silver have the right to approve or take away a franchise from another owner.
If not, Sterling would own the team and have to have someone else operate it. Silver would have no choice but to try to get owners to vote Sterling out.
We are not talking about legality. We are talking about Silver having the power to force Shelly to sell the team against her stated wishes. Sounds like its getting harder and harder for you to deflect the topic. I wont let you.
I understand.
Punish hate with hate. Punish anyone who expresses an idea you disagree with to the highest extreme you can. Since you are not allowed by law to attack them physically, attack their livelyhood. Take from them everything you are capable of taking from them under the law and call it just consequence.
There is no hypocrisy in that at all.
Is the old coot actually going to be harmed by all this? Probably not. He's still going to rich as hell.
But it isn't for lack of trying.
I get it.
You are emotional about this and not thinking straight. You do something you deal with the consequences. You want to be a racist then what ever happens to you is your fault. Stop whining about that.
Depending on the degree I am affected by your actions you better damn well be prepared to suffer whatever consequences I can bring. You dont get to run around in life saying and doing things without dealing with consequences.
Of course there is no hypocrisy in that. You are free to penalize me for my actions to whatever extent you can. I can accept that and deal with whatever consequences come with it.
The old coot is already harmed by this. He already had money. Once you amass that amount of assets you always know how to get it back. He could lose everything and know how to make it back. Whats hurting him is he will no longer be able to own a stable full of professional Black athletes.
Think about the bolded statement above. Do you think that statement is a blank check to inflict any consequence you choose on someone who does something bad?
By the way, he does not, nor has he ever, owned any of the players on his team. He pays them all (probably pretty ridiculous salaries) to play on his team. Does this harm them?
How could he force her if not legally?The commissioner has no legal way to force the sale and if Sterling had not been ruled incompetent, it would have had to go to a vote of the owners, and 23 of the owners would of had to vote to oust him.
The owners not Silver have the right to approve or take away a franchise from another owner.
If not, Sterling would own the team and have to have someone else operate it. Silver would have no choice but to try to get owners to vote Sterling out.
We are not talking about legality. We are talking about Silver having the power to force Shelly to sell the team against her stated wishes. Sounds like its getting harder and harder for you to deflect the topic. I wont let you.
Silver doesn't have the power to force a sale of a team, only the owners do. Can't be much plainer than that.
He does have the power. That's why Shelly is selling the team against her own stated wishes. What are you missing here?
The NBA by-laws do not allow the Commissioner to force a sale of a team, it is only the owners by a three quarters majority vote.
Show me anywhere, where the NBA commissioner has the right to force an owner to sell a team. Please, because I can't find it anywhere, he can suspend, he can inflict penalties, he cannot force an owner to sell, only other owners can.
He may have implied that there were enough votes to sell the team, but he can't force her to sell. The NBA Commissioner can't approve a new owner, only the current owners can vote a new owner in.
You are emotional about this and not thinking straight. You do something you deal with the consequences. You want to be a racist then what ever happens to you is your fault. Stop whining about that.
Depending on the degree I am affected by your actions you better damn well be prepared to suffer whatever consequences I can bring. You dont get to run around in life saying and doing things without dealing with consequences.
Of course there is no hypocrisy in that. You are free to penalize me for my actions to whatever extent you can. I can accept that and deal with whatever consequences come with it.
The old coot is already harmed by this. He already had money. Once you amass that amount of assets you always know how to get it back. He could lose everything and know how to make it back. Whats hurting him is he will no longer be able to own a stable full of professional Black athletes.
Think about the bolded statement above. Do you think that statement is a blank check to inflict any consequence you choose on someone who does something bad?
By the way, he does not, nor has he ever, owned any of the players on his team. He pays them all (probably pretty ridiculous salaries) to play on his team. Does this harm them?
It doesn't matter what I think. The law of cause and effect could care less. You commit an action you will get a reaction. Everyone knows that.
I never said he owned the players. I said he owned a stable. They wouldn't be professionals if they were not getting paid. You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension or stop assuming.
I'd rather you answer the question.How could he force her if not legally?We are not talking about legality. We are talking about Silver having the power to force Shelly to sell the team against her stated wishes. Sounds like its getting harder and harder for you to deflect the topic. I wont let you.
Do you want to rethink this question and try again?
Think about the bolded statement above. Do you think that statement is a blank check to inflict any consequence you choose on someone who does something bad?
By the way, he does not, nor has he ever, owned any of the players on his team. He pays them all (probably pretty ridiculous salaries) to play on his team. Does this harm them?
It doesn't matter what I think. The law of cause and effect could care less. You commit an action you will get a reaction. Everyone knows that.
I never said he owned the players. I said he owned a stable. They wouldn't be professionals if they were not getting paid. You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension or stop assuming.
This isn't physics. The reaction to someone saying something will only be as great as people decide to make it. The physical reaction to spoken words is nothing more than sound waves bouncing around. Is that the inevitable reaction you were talking about?
So your pronouncement about his owning a stable full of professional black athletes was really just talking about a stable and was not intended to imply the imagery of a person who owns a stable full of horses?
I'm just wondering why you choose that phrasing then.
I'd rather you answer the question.How could he force her if not legally?
Do you want to rethink this question and try again?
If you did not understand the question, please say so and I will expound upon it.
The people who claim to be liberals today are really just neoMarxists posing as historic liberals. Ralph Nader is a real liberal. Obama is a shill for Wall Street banks, an ideological neoMarxist and no liberal in a historical sense of the term.
But liberals have done this to themselves by being so foolish as to trust libtards, much like real conservatives were foolish to trust neocons.
And you are an idiot.
lol, easy to state but harder to demonstrate.
The New American Left is dominated by historians like Zinn, political extremists groups like radical environmentalists, and activists like Ayers.
True there may be some, but the Democratic party is not being run by these extremist liberals, and will not acquiesce to their demands.Todays liberals are not the liberals of Truman or JFK, not at all.
It doesn't matter what I think. The law of cause and effect could care less. You commit an action you will get a reaction. Everyone knows that.
I never said he owned the players. I said he owned a stable. They wouldn't be professionals if they were not getting paid. You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension or stop assuming.
This isn't physics. The reaction to someone saying something will only be as great as people decide to make it. The physical reaction to spoken words is nothing more than sound waves bouncing around. Is that the inevitable reaction you were talking about?
So your pronouncement about his owning a stable full of professional black athletes was really just talking about a stable and was not intended to imply the imagery of a person who owns a stable full of horses?
I'm just wondering why you choose that phrasing then.
Who said this was physics? Its more life philosophy and chemistry. You say or do something I don't like and it produces a chemical reaction in my brain that produces an emotion. If that emotion is strong enough to prompt me to action you suffer consequences. Pretty simple right? You wanting me to be responsible for stopping that phenomenon from happening is dumb. If you want it to cease you need to cease from doing offending actions.
I chose that phrasing to point out his mindset. How you turned that into saying he owned the player is a mystery to me. If you dont understand something then ask for clarification. That way you dont put your foot in your mouth.
What means, other than legal means, would the league commissioner have to force an owner to sell their team?I'd rather you answer the question.Do you want to rethink this question and try again?
If you did not understand the question, please say so and I will expound upon it.
Please expound.
And you are an idiot.
lol, easy to state but harder to demonstrate.
The New American Left is dominated by historians like Zinn, political extremists groups like radical environmentalists, and activists like Ayers.
There may be some extremists in the Democratic party but they don't control the party like the extremists (Tea Party) controls the Republican party. The Republicans (like Boehner) and others, have been caving in to the demands of extremists, like Ted Cruz and then suffering the consequences for it.
True there may be some, but the Democratic party is not being run by these extremist liberals, and will not acquiesce to their demands.Todays liberals are not the liberals of Truman or JFK, not at all.
lol, easy to state but harder to demonstrate.
The New American Left is dominated by historians like Zinn, political extremists groups like radical environmentalists, and activists like Ayers.
There may be some extremists in the Democratic party but they don't control the party like the extremists (Tea Party) controls the Republican party. The Republicans (like Boehner) and others, have been caving in to the demands of extremists, like Ted Cruz and then suffering the consequences for it.
True there may be some, but the Democratic party is not being run by these extremist liberals, and will not acquiesce to their demands.Todays liberals are not the liberals of Truman or JFK, not at all.
Hillary Clintons comment that the Redskins should change their name and her view of Hamas as a humanitarian org suggest that you have a serious underestimation of the neoMarxists power in your party.
There may be some extremists in the Democratic party but they don't control the party like the extremists (Tea Party) controls the Republican party. The Republicans (like Boehner) and others, have been caving in to the demands of extremists, like Ted Cruz and then suffering the consequences for it.
True there may be some, but the Democratic party is not being run by these extremist liberals, and will not acquiesce to their demands.
Hillary Clintons comment that the Redskins should change their name and her view of Hamas as a humanitarian org suggest that you have a serious underestimation of the neoMarxists power in your party.
I tried to find where Hillary made the comment about Hamas, and only R-wing extremist sites came up. Funny. Would you happen to have a link, from a non extremist site?
Since some Native American's are offended by the name Redskins, I think the name should be changed. Do you want a team called the Washington Teabaggers, or is that offensive?
What means, other than legal means, would the league commissioner have to force an owner to sell their team?I'd rather you answer the question.
If you did not understand the question, please say so and I will expound upon it.
Please expound.
This isn't physics. The reaction to someone saying something will only be as great as people decide to make it. The physical reaction to spoken words is nothing more than sound waves bouncing around. Is that the inevitable reaction you were talking about?
So your pronouncement about his owning a stable full of professional black athletes was really just talking about a stable and was not intended to imply the imagery of a person who owns a stable full of horses?
I'm just wondering why you choose that phrasing then.
Who said this was physics? Its more life philosophy and chemistry. You say or do something I don't like and it produces a chemical reaction in my brain that produces an emotion. If that emotion is strong enough to prompt me to action you suffer consequences. Pretty simple right? You wanting me to be responsible for stopping that phenomenon from happening is dumb. If you want it to cease you need to cease from doing offending actions.
I chose that phrasing to point out his mindset. How you turned that into saying he owned the player is a mystery to me. If you dont understand something then ask for clarification. That way you dont put your foot in your mouth.
We put limits on the reactions we allow ourselves to the words and actions of others. If I say, "baseball is the worst sport on earth," and you, as a staunch fan of baseball, are angered by those words, are you then justified in killing me? No. To say that we hear words that trigger a chemical reaction that causes anger, and that whatever may happen afterwards is simply the fault of the speaker, is absurd. What happens afterwards is the choice of the listener. It is not predetermined or predestined.
The mindset you seem to be ascribing to him is that which is similar to the owner of a stable of horses. If that was not the mindset you were ascribing to him, why use a phrasing that could give no other impression? I'm also interested to know by which means you determined what his mindset was. Did he make a statement of such?
V: Do you know that you have a whole team that's black, that plays for you?
DS: You just, do I know? I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I haveWho makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?
There may be some extremists in the Democratic party but they don't control the party like the extremists (Tea Party) controls the Republican party. The Republicans (like Boehner) and others, have been caving in to the demands of extremists, like Ted Cruz and then suffering the consequences for it.
True there may be some, but the Democratic party is not being run by these extremist liberals, and will not acquiesce to their demands.
Hillary Clintons comment that the Redskins should change their name and her view of Hamas as a humanitarian org suggest that you have a serious underestimation of the neoMarxists power in your party.
I tried to find where Hillary made the comment about Hamas, and only R-wing extremist sites came up. Funny. Would you happen to have a link, from a non extremist site?
Since some Native American's are offended by the name Redskins, I think the name should be changed. Do you want a team called the Washington Teabaggers, or is that offensive?
And you are an idiot.
lol, easy to state but harder to demonstrate.
The New American Left is dominated by historians like Zinn, political extremists groups like radical environmentalists, and activists like Ayers.
There may be some extremists in the Democratic party but they don't control the party like the extremists (Tea Party) controls the Republican party. The Republicans (like Boehner) and others, have been caving in to the demands of extremists, like Ted Cruz and then suffering the consequences for it.
True there may be some, but the Democratic party is not being run by these extremist liberals, and will not acquiesce to their demands.Todays liberals are not the liberals of Truman or JFK, not at all.
Who said this was physics? Its more life philosophy and chemistry. You say or do something I don't like and it produces a chemical reaction in my brain that produces an emotion. If that emotion is strong enough to prompt me to action you suffer consequences. Pretty simple right? You wanting me to be responsible for stopping that phenomenon from happening is dumb. If you want it to cease you need to cease from doing offending actions.
I chose that phrasing to point out his mindset. How you turned that into saying he owned the player is a mystery to me. If you dont understand something then ask for clarification. That way you dont put your foot in your mouth.
We put limits on the reactions we allow ourselves to the words and actions of others. If I say, "baseball is the worst sport on earth," and you, as a staunch fan of baseball, are angered by those words, are you then justified in killing me? No. To say that we hear words that trigger a chemical reaction that causes anger, and that whatever may happen afterwards is simply the fault of the speaker, is absurd. What happens afterwards is the choice of the listener. It is not predetermined or predestined.
The mindset you seem to be ascribing to him is that which is similar to the owner of a stable of horses. If that was not the mindset you were ascribing to him, why use a phrasing that could give no other impression? I'm also interested to know by which means you determined what his mindset was. Did he make a statement of such?
Yes I could very well be justified in killing you. Justification is a subjective thing based on what I (not you the victim) assume is reasonable. It may or may not be the fault of the speaker in your eyes but the speakers actions did indeed cause it. The affect was that you were killed. If you want to make your argument stronger I would suggest you stop using subjective words like justification and fault. You can do better.
That was exactly the mindset I was ascribing to him. I just never said he owned the player like you claimed I meant without clarifying that with me. He paid a hefty price in order to wield a sense of power over these athletes and that made him feel good.
Yes he made several statements and displayed actions that showed his inclination towards the mindset of a stable owner. Did you not read the transcripts of his comments?
V: Do you know that you have a whole team that's black, that plays for you?
DS: You just, do I know? I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I haveWho makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?
