Donald Sterling and Political Theory

[waywardgs]

There are actually people that do it. And then they are charged with murder. Dumb shit.

I think the point that he was making is that Magic was whoring without a condom doing unsafe practices which lead to him getting HIV.

True now but not in the 80's when there wasn't a whole lot of good info about HIV yet.

[waywardgs]

The point about magic is whatever, but it's pretty silly to attack someone whom you purport to be friends with just to divert the conversation.

[Back]

There are actually people that do it. And then they are charged with murder. Dumb shit.

Ya know, I'm gonna twist things here.

Condoms. So preventative. Prevents disease and pregnancy.

We guys have had to sheath ourselves. We are responsible. But condoms suck.

Where are the female condoms? Have they not been tested? Are they not practical? I've never seen one in my time on Earth.

[Parkbandit]

Ya know, I'm gonna twist things here.

Condoms. So preventative. Prevents disease and pregnancy.

We guys have had to sheath ourselves. We are responsible. But condoms suck.

Where are the female condoms? Have they not been tested? Are they not practical? I've never seen one in my time on Earth.

http://dxline.info/img/new_ail/female-condoms_1.jpg

[Atlanteax]

There are actually people that do it. And then they are charged with murder. Dumb shit.

I think the point that he was making is that Magic was whoring without a condom doing unsafe practices which lead to him getting HIV/giving it.

Which is a compelling reason why he would/should *not* be a role-model...

[Back]

Which is a compelling reason why he would/should *not* be a role-model...

6908th dumbest.

[Atlanteax]

Ya know, I'm gonna twist things here.

Condoms. So preventative. Prevents disease and pregnancy.

We guys have had to sheath ourselves. We are responsible. But condoms suck.

Where are the female condoms? Have they not been tested? Are they not practical? I've never seen one in my time on Earth.

Female have other methods of birth control available... but for as STD protection, there is (1) abstinence, and (2) supplying & insisting that the guy wear a condom.

[Atlanteax]

6908th dumbest.

So *both* cwolff and Back think that 'popular' sport-players should be absolved of any form of higher standards of moral conduct when it comes to being a 'role-model'. Just being an athlete is apparently enough to qualify as one.

[Back]

So *both* cwolff and Back think that 'popular' sport-players should be absolved of any form of higher standards of moral conduct when it comes to being a 'role-model'. Just being an athlete is apparently enough to qualify as one.

And you probably blame people who have bad luck for their own problems. Sounds about right.

Get struck by lightning? You should not have been walking outside.

I hope you have a blessed life.

[Atlanteax]

And you probably blame people who have bad luck for their own problems. Sounds about right.

Get struck by lightning? You should not have been walking outside.

I hope you have a blessed life.

So you think contacting HIV is not preventable at all? Just a matter of bad luck?

[Back]

So you think contacting HIV is not preventable at all? Just a matter of bad luck?

Of course, dumbass. Nobody wants to contract a disease.

[Atlanteax]

Of course, dumbass. Nobody wants to contract a disease.

Okay, glad that you agree that Magic's behavior was deplorable then.

[Back]

Okay, glad that you agree that Magic's behavior was deplorable then.

How can you come to that conclusion from what I posted?

What did Magic do that was deplorable?

Do you blame people who have cancer for having it?

Let me also ask you this... are you human?

[Johnny Five]

How can you come to that conclusion from what I posted?

What did Magic do that was deplorable?

Do you blame people who have cancer for having it?

Let me also ask you this... are you human?

How can you even compare cancer and HIV?

[Back]

Cooper's like... WUT???

[Back]

How can you even compare cancer and HIV?

How can you be so dumb?

[Back]

How can you even compare cancer and HIV?

Sorry. I am raging. I don't know you, you don't know me, so let me spell it out.

HIV and Cancer are diseases that nobody wants or wants to give to another person. Luckily! We have survivers.

[Johnny Five]

How can you be so dumb?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

I think you need to do a little reading to understand that these two things aren't even in the same category. Then actually answer the question. How can you compare HIV to Cancer?

One can you can take a measure to prevent.
If only wearing a condom could prevent cancer :(.

[Back]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

I think you need to do a little reading to understand that these two things aren't even in the same category. Then actually answer the question. How can you compare HIV to Cancer?

I appreciate you trying to edify but see my previous post.

[Parkbandit]

How can you be so dumb?

lolx100

[Johnny Five]

I appreciate you trying to edify but see my previous post.

Can you blame someone for giving you a STD?
Can you blame someone for giving you cancer?
Can you be blamed for not wearing a condom and contracting a STD?
Can you be blamed for living a healthy lifestyle and still getting cancer?

[Tgo01]

Ya know, I'm gonna twist things here.

Condoms. So preventative. Prevents disease and pregnancy.

We guys have had to sheath ourselves. We are responsible. But condoms suck.

Where are the female condoms? Have they not been tested? Are they not practical? I've never seen one in my time on Earth.

Y'know, I'm totally with you Back that both the man and woman should bear some responsibility. The man should be wearing a condom but the woman should be insisting the man wears a condom before letting him play inside of her.

But the way you say "condoms suck!" is just stupid. It's like you're saying it's okay for a man not to wear a condom because "they suck!" so you're blaming women if they catch HIV from someone who knows he's been banging hundreds of chicks a week. And let's not get into the whole "Well AIDs was new back then..." come on, STDs are nothing new and that's exactly what condoms were for back then.

[Back]

Y'know, I'm totally with you Back that both the man and woman should bear some responsibility. The man should be wearing a condom but the woman should be insisting the man wears a condom before letting him play inside of her.

But the way you say "condoms suck!" is just stupid. It's like you're saying it's okay for a man not to wear a condom because "they suck!" so you're blaming women if they catch HIV from someone who knows he's been banging hundreds of chicks a week. And let's not get into the whole "Well AIDs was new back then..." come on, STDs is nothing new and that's exactly what condoms were for back then.


Wow. You are way out of line on this one, not surprisingly.

Play inside her? Dude. Get laid and then lets talk.

[Tgo01]

Wow. You are way out of line on this one, not surprisingly.


Condoms. So preventative. Prevents disease and pregnancy.

We guys have had to sheath ourselves. We are responsible. But condoms suck.

Where are the female condoms?

I think I'll stand by what I said. You sure are sounding misogynist in this thread, Back.


Play inside her? Dude. Get laid and then lets talk.

Don't worry, I get laid plenty and you know what? I don't think condoms suck and I always wear one :D

[Back]

Can you blame someone for giving you a STD?
Can you blame someone for giving you cancer?
Can you be blamed for not wearing a condom and contracting a STD?
Can you be blamed for living a healthy lifestyle and still getting cancer?

The issue I see here is blaming the malafflicted for being afflicted. Blaming the person with a disease for getting the disease.

Or any other tragedy that befalls them on themselves.

Why did you get hit by that car that the driver was texting in?

And, no, cancer is NOT transmittable. That was not my point. Genius.

[Back]

I think I'll stand by what I said. You sure are sounding misogynist in this thread, Back.



Don't worry, I get laid plenty and you know what? I don't think condoms suck and I always wear one :D

http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/general-discussion/804956d1370277000-mtbr-word-association-game-tinycondompa_450x350.jpg

[Tgo01]

http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/general-discussion/804956d1370277000-mtbr-word-association-game-tinycondompa_450x350.jpg

Jealous?

[Back]

Very, :(

[Johnny Five]

The issue I see here is blaming the malafflicted for being afflicted. Blaming the person with a disease for getting the disease.

Or any other tragedy that befalls them on themselves.

Why did you get hit by that car that the driver was texting in?

And, no, cancer is NOT transmittable. That was not my point. Genius.

Me getting HIT by a car while a driver is texting would not be my fault.

I HITTING someone while texting would be my fault.

Do you even see the difference here?

Getting HIV while wearing a condom and it having a defect of breaking would not be my fault...

Getting HIV because I refused to wear a condom WOULD be my fault...

Do you get this now?

You must also believe that meth heads are great people and shouldn't be blamed for any of their problems based on what you are saying....

[Back]

Me getting HIT by a car while a driver is texting would not be my fault.

I HITTING someone while texting would be my fault.

Do you even see the difference here?

Getting HIV while wearing a condom and it having a defect of breaking would not be my fault...

Getting HIV because I refused to wear a condom WOULD be my fault...

Do you get this now?

You must also believe that meth heads are great people and shouldn't be blamed for any of their problems based on what you are saying....

Thats working backwards from a dumb conclusion.

I already told you my point. But go ahead and blame people who don't win the lottery. It's their own damn fault. Right?

[Johnny Five]

Thats working backwards from a dumb conclusion.

I already told you my point. But go ahead and blame people who don't win the lottery. It's their own damn fault. Right?

Okay.. I just can't talk to you anymore. Trying to explain anything to you is impossible. So fucking retarded.

[Atlanteax]

Sorry. I am raging. I don't know you, you don't know me, so let me spell it out.

HIV and Cancer are diseases that nobody wants or wants to give to another person. Luckily! We have survivers.

Wow Back, I did not realize that you thought you could spread cancer by sexual contact...

This explains a lot about your recent posts...

[Back]

Wow Back, I did not realize that you thought you could spread cancer by sexual contact...

This explains a lot about your recent posts...

Actually, it explains more about yours. I don't mean to make fun, but is (American) English your second language?

[Latrinsorm]

Which is a compelling reason why he would/should *not* be a role-model...Magic doesn't advocate his past behavior. In fact, two weeks (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0756_Magics_New_Tune_On_S.html) after his announcement he advocated abstinence.

If I tell you I've never done heroin but that it's really bad for you, part of you is going to think "well, how would he know?" If I tell you that I tried heroin and it was the worst mistake of my life, that part of you gets no say. As Bono would put it, sinners make the best saints.

[Thondalar]

If I tell you I've never done heroin but that it's really bad for you, part of you is going to think "well, how would he know?" If I tell you that I tried heroin and it was the worst mistake of my life, that part of you gets no say. As Bono would put it, sinners make the best saints.

QFT

[Atlanteax]

Magic doesn't advocate his past behavior. In fact, two weeks (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0756_Magics_New_Tune_On_S.html) after his announcement he advocated abstinence.

There you go, he indicated himself that he was not a (good) role-model to emulate (a new word for Back).

[waywardgs]

Maybe I underestimated Sterling. If his intentions were to divert, he was pretty successful.

[Latrinsorm]

It seems like we're having a disconnect on the term "role model". Magic is using his present example as worthy of emulation, and contrasting it unfavorably with his past example. I would call that being a role model.

[Atlanteax]

It seems like we're having a disconnect on the term "role model". Magic is using his present example as worthy of emulation, and contrasting it unfavorably with his past example. I would call that being a role model.

Well, Sterling was referring to Magic's past example ... which you agreed is not ideal...

[Atlanteax]

Maybe I underestimated Sterling. If his intentions were to divert, he was pretty successful.

I think it is more so that the NBA underestimated 'Shelly' Sterling. She is apparently fully planning on digging in her heels at being 50% owner (or more).

[Tgo01]

It seems like we're having a disconnect on the term "role model". Magic is using his present example as worthy of emulation, and contrasting it unfavorably with his past example. I would call that being a role model.

I think what Latrin is saying is everyone deserves second chances, except old Jewish dudes with declining mental faculties. That about right, Mein Führer?

[waywardgs]

I think what Latrin is saying is everyone deserves second chances, except old Jewish dudes with declining mental faculties. That about right, Mein Führer?

He's had a bunch.

But you're right, America loves a good comeback story.

[Latrinsorm]

I think what Latrin is saying is everyone deserves second chances, except old Jewish dudes with declining mental faculties. That about right, Mein Führer?Who are you calling Mein? I'm a vultite Führer at least.
Well, Sterling was referring to Magic's past example ... which you agreed is not ideal...Sterling was using Magic's past example as a reason he should go into the background now.

[Allereli]

Magic on Anderson Cooper tonight

[cwolff]

Magic on Anderson Cooper tonight

I'm no psychic but I bet you $100.00 he does better than the Donald (Sterling that is).

[Allereli]

I'm no psychic but I bet you $100.00 he does better than the Donald (Sterling that is).

what is it with rich men named Donald and really bad hair?

[~Rocktar~]

Who are you calling Mein? I'm a vultite Führer at least.

Now that's dang funny, I don't care who you are.

[Johnny Five]

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/434686/

They should force the state to give up the school.

[Tgo01]

Sterling lost lawsuit to stop sell of team. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/28/judge-oks-record-setting-2b-sale-of-clippers-to-x-microsoft-ceo/20938280/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D508176)

This part struck me as odd:


An unusual provision of the ruling bars Donald Sterling from seeking a court-ordered delay of the sale as he appeals. His lawyers plan to seek permission from an appellate court to file an appeal.

So as of right now the sale can proceed before he can even use his appeals?

I dunno...sure sounds like this wasn't all about justice here...

[Parkbandit]

Sterling lost lawsuit to stop sell of team. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/28/judge-oks-record-setting-2b-sale-of-clippers-to-x-microsoft-ceo/20938280/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D508176)

This part struck me as odd:

So as of right now the sale can proceed before he can even use his appeals?

I dunno...sure sounds like this wasn't all about justice here...

Racists don't deserve justice or Constitutional protection.

[Jarvan]

Sterling lost lawsuit to stop sell of team. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/28/judge-oks-record-setting-2b-sale-of-clippers-to-x-microsoft-ceo/20938280/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D508176)

This part struck me as odd:



So as of right now the sale can proceed before he can even use his appeals?

I dunno...sure sounds like this wasn't all about justice here...

Kinda reminds you of when Law was thrown out so Unions could get their money first from the GM fiasco.

[Candor]

Racists don't deserve justice or Constitutional protection.

Yeah, let's make a list of those whose constitutional protections should be taken away. C'mon libbies, I know you have a draft list handy - ya know people like racists, homophobes, abortion clinic protesters, Republican voters...

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, let's make a list of those whose constitutional protections should be taken away. C'mon libbies, I know you have a draft list handy - ya know people like racists, homophobes, abortion clinic protesters, Republican voters...

Clearly the 1st and 6th here.

[Latrinsorm]

California probate code section 1310-b:
Notwithstanding that an appeal is taken from the judgment or order, for the purpose of preventing injury or loss to a person or property, the trial court may direct the exercise of the powers of the fiduciary, or may appoint a temporary guardian or conservator of the person or estate, or both, or a special administrator or temporary trustee, to exercise the powers, from time to time, as if no appeal were pending. All acts of the fiduciary pursuant to the directions of the court made under this subdivision are valid, irrespective of the result of the appeal. An appeal of the directions made by the court under this subdivision shall not stay these directions.

1. It is reasonably certain that the Clippers property would suffer significant loss if this process draws out: the players and head coach have publicly threatened to quit, the man making the $2b offer has publicly threatened to pull it, they've already lost sponsors.

2. It is reasonably certain that the Clippers would not be sold for more if Donald Sterling was still in charge: he's Donald Sterling, they've already received by far and away the biggest payday for any NBA franchise in history, he's Donald Sterling.

Therefore, giving Mrs. Sterling carte blanche to proceed with the sale is the path that avoids loss by the Clippers.

.

The incredible irony of the response here is that the active ingredient is not liberal sensibilities but conservative ones: the government is explicitly acting on behalf of the $$$.

[Tgo01]

1. It is reasonably certain that the Clippers property would suffer significant loss if this process draws out: the players and head coach have publicly threatened to quit, the man making the $2b offer has publicly threatened to pull it, they've already lost sponsors.

Surely we all learned the difference between real loss and imagined loss in grade school.

Real loss: Team has lost money.
Imagined loss: Players threaten to quit which might lead to team losing money if the players do actually quit.


The incredible irony of the response here is that the active ingredient is not liberal sensibilities but conservative ones: the government is explicitly acting on behalf of the $$$.

Acting on behalf of money = conservative sensibilities? Have any data to back up such an assertion?

[Latrinsorm]

Surely we all learned the difference between real loss and imagined loss in grade school.

Real loss: Team has lost money.
Imagined loss: Players threaten to quit which might lead to team losing money if the players do actually quit.Of course the loss is only imagined and not yet realized, that's why it can be prevented rather than merely mitigated. That's also why both sides of the case were considered by the judge, and the reasonable determination was made in Mrs. Sterling's favor.
Acting on behalf of money = conservative sensibilities? Have any data to back up such an assertion?o_O

[Tgo01]

Of course the loss is only imagined and not yet realized, that's why it can be prevented rather than merely mitigated. That's also why both sides of the case were considered by the judge, and the reasonable determination was made in Mrs. Sterling's favor.

So we now base decisions affecting a poor billionaire's livelihood on a bunch of "what ifs"?

No one has to show damages or prove possible future damages? Just a bunch of "Well he said..."

Man. I hope the entire country quickly follows California's lead. Going to make lawsuits much more interesting.


o_O

I accept your surrender but not your apology. Get back to your corner!

[Back]

I sure hope that calling out racism is not solely the providence of the liberal.

[Methais]

Clearly the 1st and 6th here.

1 only applies if they are also 6. Otherwise they're just expressing their first amendment rights.

[Wrathbringer]

I sure hope that calling out racism is not solely the providence of the liberal.

It is. Everyone else is beyond that already.

[JackWhisper]

One question.

Sterling owned the Clippers. They're being sold. Does he get the 2 billion?

That's all I really care about knowing. The rest of it's just about as stupid as the Dr. Laura radio talk show N-bomb incident.

[Latrinsorm]

So we now base decisions affecting a poor billionaireOh, you!
No one has to show damages or prove possible future damages? Just a bunch of "Well he said..."

Man. I hope the entire country quickly follows California's lead. Going to make lawsuits much more interesting.The problem with your argument is that they did prove them. The question you should always ask when anyone uses the word "proof" is "to what standard?", and in this case it was to the satisfaction of the judge.
One question.

Sterling owned the Clippers. They're being sold. Does he get the 2 billion?

That's all I really care about knowing. The rest of it's just about as stupid as the Dr. Laura radio talk show N-bomb incident.The whole reason Mrs. Sterling was able to remove Mr. Sterling from the decision making process was because he didn't technically own the Clippers, but a family trust did, and more specifically a family trust that included rules for removing a trustee that she dutifully followed.

He is no longer a trustee, but as a 50% beneficiary of the trust he still gets $1b, or whatever 50% works out to less fees and whatnot.

[Tgo01]

The problem with your argument is that they did prove them.

Uh-huh. With a bunch of "he said he was going to do something bad if Sterling wasn't removed..."

That's about the poorest excuse of "proof" I've ever seen. The probate courts in California must be a huge joke.

"Well we have received numerous threats that people are going to start setting houses on fire unless you decide in my favor, your honor, therefore you have to decide in my favor to prevent injuries and damage to people and property."

Isn't it more likely that bit of California probate law was pertaining to damage to people/property that would arise based on the decisions of the person the probate court is addressing? Like if Donald Sterling had repeatedly said he was going to fire everyone and change the team name to an offensive slur if he remained in control?


The question you should always ask when anyone uses the word "proof" is "to what standard?", and in this case it was to the satisfaction of the judge.

Exactly, hence why I said this decision had little to nothing to do with justice. Thanks for backing me up, Latrin :D

[Jarvan]

.

The incredible irony of the response here is that the active ingredient is not liberal sensibilities but conservative ones: the government is explicitly acting on behalf of the $$$.


Yeah.. because Dems NEVER do anything to help big corporations or protect people's Money...

Solyndra and GM just off the top of my head.

[Latrinsorm]

Uh-huh. With a bunch of "he said he was going to do something bad if Sterling wasn't removed..."

That's about the poorest excuse of "proof" I've ever seen. The probate courts in California must be a huge joke.

"Well we have received numerous threats that people are going to start setting houses on fire unless you decide in my favor, your honor, therefore you have to decide in my favor to prevent injuries and damage to people and property."

Isn't it more likely that bit of California probate law was pertaining to damage to people/property that would arise based on the decisions of the person the probate court is addressing? Like if Donald Sterling had repeatedly said he was going to fire everyone and change the team name to an offensive slur if he remained in control?You're intentionally misunderstanding the issue, but for the record the "prevent loss to property" is relevant to dismissing appeal's delay.
Exactly, hence why I said this decision had little to nothing to do with justice. Thanks for backing me up, Latrin :DJudges dispense justice all the time. Heck, we even call them justices!
Yeah.. because Dems NEVER do anything to help big corporations or protect people's Money...Who said anything about Democrats?

[Tgo01]

You're intentionally misunderstanding the issue, but for the record the "prevent loss to property" is relevant to dismissing appeal's delay.

No...pretty sure I'm not...


Judges dispense justice all the time. Heck, we even call them justices!

What do we call them when they don't rule in the name of justice?

[JackWhisper]

I say screw the NBA. Guy gets a billion dollars. Dude. WTF EPIC.

[Tgo01]

I say screw the NBA. Guy gets a billion dollars. Dude. WTF EPIC.

Yeah, it is kind of ironic that everyone thinks they are punishing him by forcing him to sell the team when in reality he stands to make something like 1.9 billion dollars in profit by being forced to sell the team.

[Methais]

Yeah, it is kind of ironic that everyone thinks they are punishing him by forcing him to sell the team when in reality he stands to make something like 1.9 billion dollars in profit by being forced to sell the team.

Then after the sale people will scream about how it's unfair that he's richer now and that the NBA (or the government) must do something about it.

"We wanted him to be forced to sell his team BUT WE DIDN'T REALIZE HE'D BE GETTING THE MONEY FOR IT TOO WTF OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG THIS PROVES THAT RACISM IS REWARDED IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111"

[Tgo01]

Then after the sale people will scream about how it's unfair that he's richer now and that the NBA (or the government) must do something about it.

"We wanted him to be forced to sell his team BUT WE DIDN'T REALIZE HE'D BE GETTING THE MONEY FOR IT TOO WTF OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG THIS PROVES THAT RACISM IS REWARDED IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111"

Obama! Obama! Obama!