Donald Sterling Banned From NBA......Totally

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Old-T

It might be the same from the right/wrong point of view, or the legal perspective, but it is NOT the same economically. You might think it SHOULD be, and I would not strenuously disagree with you, but what should be is not always what is (all you have to do is read this board to see that). If you do not see that I can't help you.

gnad must not understand just wtf the bottom line means.

Bottom line gnad is that when JayZ starts effecting the leagues bottom line, he will get the stink eye too. That said, I do not care for the racist overrated fuck.

[LexusLiar]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the left will go after every sort of thought or private conversation they disagree with

when they get absolute power...you will have zero freedoms

here they talk abt mayweather not being allowed to possibly buy the clippers for his speech

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-S...Caused-Breakup

ok

[R.M.]

cowgirlsjpg.jpg

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

SCOTUS upheld the NDAA. Benghazi story proven to be a cover up. Our economy grew at 0.1%. Ukraine about to explode. China's economy overtaking ours.

And all this time spent on a rich asshole saying something stupid that affects nobody.

No wonder the US is crumbling.

So racism is "something stupid that affects nobody."? Better tell that to the hundreds of thousands that died in the Civil War or all the blacks who have had family members lynched, beaten or jailed unjustly.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We interrupt this drivel with some important news that affects all of us.

SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal reversing Judge Forrest's opinion overturning indefinite detention on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Therefore, the appellate court decision stands. Bunch of gutless wonders, SCOTUS is.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled mindless distraction.

So if they don't agree with you they are "spinless" huh? Maybe the plaintiffs did lack standing? Are you a Constitutional expert or should SCOTUS just take any case that the majority thinks the opinion should be changed on and damn law and precedent (which actually they have done a few times anyway)?

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the left will go after every sort of thought or private conversation they disagree with

when they get absolute power...you will have zero freedoms

Originally Posted by LexusLiar

ok

Puuuhhhleassseeeee........ Like the far right doesn't and won't do exactly the same given half a chance. Hell, Nixon had an "enemies" list.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the left will go after every sort of thought or private conversation they disagree with

when they get absolute power...you will have zero freedoms

here they talk abt mayweather not being allowed to possibly buy the clippers for his speech

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-S...Caused-Breakup

Did you read the comments in that BB article? ...

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

So racism is "something stupid that affects nobody."? I did not say that. What happens in the NBA pales in comparison to what it is distracting you from. Please try to comprehend! Better tell that to the hundreds of thousands that died in the Civil War or all the blacks who have had family members lynched, beaten or jailed unjustly.



So if they don't agree with you they are "spinless" huh? Well, yeah. I can accept that. I've found over and over again that when people agree with me, they are generally right. Maybe the plaintiffs did lack standing? Maybe they didn't. It would be nice if the Court shared its reasoning if that is the case. Are you a Constitutional expert Yeah. Kinda. or should SCOTUS just take any case that the majority thinks the opinion should be changed on I don't think the majority want this law changed, but it is clearly unconstitutional. and damn law and precedent There is no precedent for allowing the Executive branch the authority to arrest and detain citizens indefinitely with no due process of law, including no right to a hearing nor an attorney. (which actually they have done a few times anyway)? When necessary, they should. And by necessary, I mean when I think it is appropriate.

What a self-righteous moron you are. You have much to be modest about.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Did you read the comments in that BB article? ...

What the fuck is BB, Slobbrin?

Bright Bart?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[JCM800]

[i'va biggen]

Sterling got banned
JL got banned
Sterling was JL ?

[Worldtravler]

Sterling could have avoided all this mess and just joined eccie and would have had no problem finding a NBA sugar baby.

[BigLouie]

In a Barbara WaWa interview she said she was just his "silly rabbit". Yea they fucked like bunnies

[WTF]

More like a tortoise fucking a rabbit.








.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Sterling got banned
JL got banned
Sterling was JL ?

Hhahahahahahahaha!

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Two things: It WAS a private document, and just because it was never "made public" doesn't mean that "no one in this forum knows what the details of that document are"!

What is "not" private are the laws of the California re marital property, and the allegations supporting the action taken by the association.

On CNN, several announcers say the have read the "private" document which makes one wonder who "leaked" it to them and if that NBA organization can and will be penalized.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Some people here don't really understand. JAY z's situation is NOT the same on the one key issue: he isn't affecting the league's bottom looks me by millions or more. This is truly about a collection of very rich capitalists, I would guess more politically conservative than liberal, making a business decision. When Jay Z's medallion chases away sponsors you can expect it will be addressed.

Originally Posted by Old-T

It might be the same from the right/wrong point of view, or the legal perspective, but it is NOT the same economically. You might think it SHOULD be, and I would not strenuously disagree with you, but what should be is not always what is (all you have to do is read this board to see that). If you do not see that I can't help you.

Originally Posted by WTF

gnad must not understand just wtf the bottom line means.

Bottom line gnad is that when JayZ starts effecting the leagues bottom line, he will get the stink eye too. That said, I do not care for the racist overrated fuck.

More bad reading comprehension and inability to draw conclusions by WTF.

Sterling has been a racist for decades. So has Jay-Z. The difference is there isn't a "viable" white race grievance industry to force a boycott of advertisers and businesses that would cost the leagues "bottom line." So Jay-Z (when he was an owner) could literally show up at a Nets game with a "fuck whitey" medallion and there would be little backlash.

Just like the Duck Dynasty incident, the boycott was being threatened by a LBGT political group. Anyone who cared knew what the Robertsons where about. Their political grievance group just isn't strong enough - yet.

BTW, old-T said "bottom looks." He must of been thinking about Beyonce.

Originally Posted by Worldtravler

Sterling could have avoided all this mess and just joined eccie and would have had no problem finding a NBA sugar baby.

Sterling would be quickly kicked out of eccie. The idiot grossly overpays his hos.