Current Events > Nearly 4 years later, was it fair Donald Sterling lost his ownership?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Caution998 11/29/17 12:58:07 PM #1:	For racist remarks he said in the comfort of his own home? I mean, obviously, nobody agrees with what he said...but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it? --- The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poli' meaning many, and the word 'ticks' meaning blood sucking parasites. <cite>Caution998 posted [p:891272598] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>For racist remarks he said in the comfort of his own home? I mean, obviously, nobody agrees with what he said...but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_Marka_Ragnos_ 11/29/17 12:59:47 PM #2:	Caution998 posted... For racist remarks he said in the comfort of his own home? I mean, obviously, nobody agrees with what he said...but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it? Well he had 15 players on his team and all 15 refused to play for him including Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, at the time (and still) two of the best players in the league. As the commissioner of the entire NBA, would you have let him stay knowing that his entire team would refuse to play for him and ratings would suffer? --- My Home Theater: http://m.imgur.com/a/la41r <cite>_Marka_Ragnos_ posted [p:891272675] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>For racist remarks he said in the comfort of his own home? I mean, obviously, nobody agrees with what he said...but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it?</quote> Well he had 15 players on his team and all 15 refused to play for him including Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, at the time (and still) two of the best players in the league. As the commissioner of the entire NBA, would you have let him stay knowing that his entire team would refuse to play for him and ratings would suffer?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 11/29/17 12:59:59 PM #3:	Caution998 posted... For racist remarks he said in the comfort of his own home? I mean, obviously, nobody agrees with what he said...but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it? This is capitalism. Not restrictions on speech. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:891272682] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>For racist remarks he said in the comfort of his own home? I mean, obviously, nobody agrees with what he said...but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it?</quote> This is capitalism. Not restrictions on speech.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MC_BatCommander 11/29/17 1:02:15 PM #4:	Caution998 posted... but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it? Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech. --- The Legend is True! <cite>MC_BatCommander posted [p:891272788] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it?</quote> Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AsucaHayashi 11/29/17 1:03:19 PM #5:	dave chappelle taught me that if you're a racist, you shouldn't tell your black girlfriend about it. --- http://abload.de/img/pcgamingxtuvt.jpg http://i.imgur.com/9Yv0R2Z.jpg <cite>AsucaHayashi posted [p:891272838] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>dave chappelle taught me that if you're a racist, you shouldn't tell your black girlfriend about it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Caution998 11/29/17 1:03:21 PM #6:	MC_BatCommander posted... Caution998 posted... but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it? Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech. I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them... --- The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poli' meaning many, and the word 'ticks' meaning blood sucking parasites. <cite>Caution998 posted [p:891272839] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>MC_BatCommander posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it?</quote> Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech.</quote> I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Schwarber 11/29/17 1:04:45 PM #7:	Conservatroll misunderstanding what free speech is again? I am shocked. --- http://i.imgur.com/iQXgYOx.gif http://i.imgur.com/l3frhSF.gif http://i.imgur.com/HM1Hjby.gif https://i.imgur.com/bvsFH0H.jpg - drawn by Yaridovich <cite>Schwarber posted [p:891272918] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Conservatroll misunderstanding what free speech is again? I am shocked.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 11/29/17 1:05:05 PM #8:	Caution998 posted... I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them... Regardless of how they became public, they posed a threat to the bottom line. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:891272939] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote> I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them...</quote> Regardless of how they became public, they posed a threat to the bottom line.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkChozoGhost 11/29/17 1:06:04 PM #9:	Eh, not really, but it's understandable. He's a piece of shit. And if his players wouldn't play for him, it was necessary to get rid of him. The first amendment protects them too. --- My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds 3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 <cite>DarkChozoGhost posted [p:891272993] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Eh, not really, but it's understandable. He's a piece of shit. And if his players wouldn't play for him, it was necessary to get rid of him. The first amendment protects them too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
andel 11/29/17 1:06:39 PM #10:	of course it is fair as he got fairly compensated. the nba is a private organization, just like a country club could revoke your membership for saying scumbag shit amplify that by 1000 as the nba is a multi billion dollar a year business --- I am thinking about just walking into the river now that Megaupload is gone and condoms are in porn.-Fubonis <cite>andel posted [p:891273020] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>of course it is fair as he got fairly compensated. the nba is a private organization, just like a country club could revoke your membership for saying scumbag shit amplify that by 1000 as the nba is a multi billion dollar a year business</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:06:47 PM #11:	That had nothing to do with free speech. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891273028] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>That had nothing to do with free speech.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MC_BatCommander 11/29/17 1:07:37 PM #12:	Caution998 posted... MC_BatCommander posted... Caution998 posted... but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it? Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech. I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them... Then why even bring up freedom of speech? Ultimately a company got rid of someone who was hurting its image, I don't really give a shit about that. --- The Legend is True! <cite>MC_BatCommander posted [p:891273074] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MC_BatCommander posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it?</quote> Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech.</quote> I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them...</quote> Then why even bring up freedom of speech? Ultimately a company got rid of someone who was hurting its image, I don't really give a shit about that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KiwiTerraRizing 11/29/17 1:07:50 PM #13:	Yes, its fair. Procedure was followed. Next --- Jake Peralta: World's Grossest Pervert <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted [p:891273085] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Yes, its fair. Procedure was followed. Next</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SuperExcitebike 11/29/17 1:08:05 PM #14:	No --- SMU Mustangs/Jayhawks/Texans/Rockets/Astros http://followmy.tv/u/Excitebike <cite>SuperExcitebike posted [p:891273101] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>No</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Caution998 11/29/17 1:08:32 PM #15:	Antifar posted... Caution998 posted... I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them... Regardless of how they became public, they posed a threat to the bottom line. Well I agree. Once it was out, I would've sent him packing as well. I'm just asking...was it fair? Surely, you must agree that talking in your own home, and unknowingly being recorded is a bit much? --- The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poli' meaning many, and the word 'ticks' meaning blood sucking parasites. <cite>Caution998 posted [p:891273131] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote> I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them...</quote> Regardless of how they became public, they posed a threat to the bottom line.</quote> Well I agree. Once it was out, I would've sent him packing as well. I'm just asking...was it fair? Surely, you must agree that talking in your own home, and unknowingly being recorded is a bit much?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Schwarber 11/29/17 1:10:51 PM #16:	What aren't you getting --- http://i.imgur.com/iQXgYOx.gif http://i.imgur.com/l3frhSF.gif http://i.imgur.com/HM1Hjby.gif https://i.imgur.com/bvsFH0H.jpg - drawn by Yaridovich <cite>Schwarber posted [p:891273258] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>What aren't you getting</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omega cookie 11/29/17 1:12:31 PM #17:	Caution998 posted... but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home You don't understand what freedom of speech is, and you should stop talking about things you don't understand. --- FFRK: BRKB - Eiko - Guardian Mog FFBE: 885,063,087 - Orlandeau - 931 ATK <cite>omega cookie posted [p:891273337] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home</quote> You don't understand what freedom of speech is, and you should stop talking about things you don't understand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I Like Toast 11/29/17 1:14:29 PM #18:	It got him 2 billion, I think he's happy --- If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all <cite>I Like Toast posted [p:891273455] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>It got him 2 billion, I think he's happy</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 11/29/17 1:14:44 PM #19:	Telling someone that they "shouldn't be seen with black people" and to "not bring black people to my games" somehow doesn't seem to be on the same level as someone making a racially insensitive joke or comment in their home. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:891273466] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Telling someone that they "shouldn't be seen with black people" and to "not bring black people to my games" somehow doesn't seem to be on the same level as someone making a racially insensitive joke or comment in their home.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 1:18:33 PM #20:	Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891273672] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Twin3Turbo 11/29/17 1:19:42 PM #21:	Caution998 posted... MC_BatCommander posted... Caution998 posted... but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it? Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech. I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them... So what? Do you think that his thoughts on minorities didn't affect the way he might treat minorities that he employed or interacted with in any form or fashion? 10x worse when the vast majority of your team are part of the minority group in question. --- https://imgflip.com/gif/di4a4 <cite>Twin3Turbo posted [p:891273737] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MC_BatCommander posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>but if you can't have freedom of speech in your own home...where can you have it?</quote> Ah yes, another person who doesn't realize that freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence. If the government arrested him for saying racist things that would be a violation of freedom of speech, being forced out of a company for saying racist things is NOT violation of free speech.</quote> I agree with you completely, but it's not like he went outside and shouted these things or said them in front of a microphone (knowingly). Or tweeted them...</quote> So what? Do you think that his thoughts on minorities didn't affect the way he might treat minorities that he employed or interacted with in any form or fashion? 10x worse when the vast majority of your team are part of the minority group in question.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 11/29/17 1:21:47 PM #22:	Didn't he say not to bring Black people to his games? That is a pretty understandable reason to get rid of him. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:891273859] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Didn't he say not to bring Black people to his games? That is a pretty understandable reason to get rid of him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:33:50 PM #23:	The Admiral posted... Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth. Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891274602] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth.</quote> Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 1:35:18 PM #24:	CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth. Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not. Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891274706] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth.</quote> Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not.</quote> Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:37:38 PM #25:	The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth. Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not. Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day. While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891274847] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth.</quote> Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not.</quote> Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day.</quote> While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 1:41:03 PM #26:	CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth. Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not. Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day. While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him. He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would claim), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that illegal recording. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891275043] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth.</quote> Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not.</quote> Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day.</quote> While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him.</quote> He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would claim), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that illegal recording.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Returning_CEmen 11/29/17 1:42:05 PM #27:	_Marka_Ragnos_ posted... As the commissioner of the entire NBA, would you have let him stay knowing that his entire team would refuse to play for him and ratings would suffer? Yes, should have stopped airing their games and they could forfeit games until he was forced to sell low. Fucker got 2 billion dollars richer for being a POS. --- http://i.imgtc.com/BOhYeOg.jpg <cite>Returning_CEmen posted [p:891275112] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>_Marka_Ragnos_ posted...</cite> <quote>As the commissioner of the entire NBA, would you have let him stay knowing that his entire team would refuse to play for him and ratings would suffer?</quote> Yes, should have stopped airing their games and they could forfeit games until he was forced to sell low. Fucker got 2 billion dollars richer for being a POS.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 11/29/17 1:43:10 PM #28:	The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth. Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not. Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day. While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him. He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would claim), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that. They terminated him because he was causing investors financial damages, not because he was racist. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:891275172] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth.</quote> Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not.</quote> Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day.</quote> While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him.</quote> He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would claim), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that.</quote> They terminated him because he was causing investors financial damages, not because he was racist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
eston 11/29/17 1:45:28 PM #29:	The thing about saying or doing things in private is that once those things become public they are no longer private. --- http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i215/estonc/grizzly_bear_chairs_2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8kjZU.jpg <cite>eston posted [p:891275293] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>The thing about saying or doing things in private is that once those things become public they are no longer private.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:45:55 PM #30:	The Admiral posted... He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that. The NBA doesn't need a legal basis to force an owner out in this situation. It's the same reason the NFL didn't need a legal basis to suspend Ezekiel Elliot. It's part of the NBA constitution and that's really all they need to force him out even if the recordings weren't legal. Sure, Sterling could have sued to argue his case on a legal basis, but Sterling doesn't have to be found guilty of a crime in court or even be charged with a crime on a legal basis to be forced out. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891275313] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that. </quote> The NBA doesn't need a legal basis to force an owner out in this situation. It's the same reason the NFL didn't need a legal basis to suspend Ezekiel Elliot. It's part of the NBA constitution and that's really all they need to force him out even if the recordings weren't legal. Sure, Sterling could have sued to argue his case on a legal basis, but Sterling doesn't have to be found guilty of a crime in court or even be charged with a crime on a legal basis to be forced out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 1:45:58 PM #31:	ChromaticAngel posted... The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth. Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not. Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day. While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him. He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would claim), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that. They terminated him because he was causing investors financial damages, not because he was racist. No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. Let's be clear here -- whether you think Sterling is a piece of shit or not, his privacy was invaded, possibly criminally so. If this situation did not work out with him getting a financial windfall, he'd have sued the shit out of everyone involved for that. This would not be a short or easy case for anyone. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891275319] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Let's not kid ourselves here. Sterling didn't "lose" the team. If he really didn't really want to sell, it would still be in litigation to this day. He simply wasn't going to forgo the absurd $2B offer, which was easily twice what the team was worth.</quote> Actually, NBA owners do have a way of forcing an owner to revoke ownership through a 3/4 vote. It really wouldn't have mattered if he wanted to sell or not.</quote> Yes, they could have tried that, and he would have sued them. And it would still be in litigation to this day.</quote> While I believe it would have been in litigation, I doubt it would have lasted this long. Sterling wouldn't have had a strong case to keep litigation going for very long, let alone 3+ years. Especially since multiple players no longer wanted to play for him.</quote> He had a very strong case. Their basis for revoking his ownership was based on an invasion of his privacy. CA is a two-party consent state, so if Sterling suffered financial losses over being recorded without his consent (which he would claim), he could sue the league for damages for acting upon that.</quote> They terminated him because he was causing investors financial damages, not because he was racist.</quote> No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. Let's be clear here -- whether you think Sterling is a piece of shit or not, his privacy was invaded, possibly criminally so. If this situation did not work out with him getting a financial windfall, he'd have sued the shit out of everyone involved for that. This would not be a short or easy case for anyone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:48:07 PM #32:	The Admiral posted... No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. So you're saying the uproar from the players, sponsors, advertisers, etc. was because the released recordings were illegal and not because of what Sterling said in the recordings? --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891275429] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. </quote> So you're saying the uproar from the players, sponsors, advertisers, etc. was because the released recordings were illegal and not because of what Sterling said in the recordings?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blo 11/29/17 1:49:21 PM #33:	This feels like a weird hair to split --- insert sig here <cite>Blo posted [p:891275513] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>This feels like a weird hair to split</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 1:49:39 PM #34:	CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. So you're saying the uproar from the players, sponsors, advertisers, etc. was because the released recordings were illegal and not because of what Sterling said in the recordings? Yes. If I break into your computer and expose things that cause your family, friends, and co-workers to get angry with you, do you think it's fair that you're the one penalized for that? --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891275525] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. </quote> So you're saying the uproar from the players, sponsors, advertisers, etc. was because the released recordings were illegal and not because of what Sterling said in the recordings?</quote> Yes. If I break into your computer and expose things that cause your family, friends, and co-workers to get angry with you, do you think it's fair that you're the one penalized for that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
metralo 11/29/17 1:49:46 PM #35:	yes, its fair --- https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1298321979/image.jpg <cite>metralo posted [p:891275532] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>yes, its fair</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Intro2Logic 11/29/17 1:51:00 PM #36:	Anybody here have thoughts on the DNC hacks? --- Have you tried thinking rationally? <cite>Intro2Logic posted [p:891275610] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Anybody here have thoughts on the DNC hacks?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 11/29/17 1:51:52 PM #37:	The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. So you're saying the uproar from the players, sponsors, advertisers, etc. was because the released recordings were illegal and not because of what Sterling said in the recordings? Yes. If I break into your computer and expose things that cause your family, friends, and co-workers to get angry with you, do you think it's fair that you're the one penalized for that? what's that saying that the republicans use every time they strip away our privacy a little more? "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:891275661] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>No, HE was not causing them damages. The person who illegally recorded him and made that information public was. </quote> So you're saying the uproar from the players, sponsors, advertisers, etc. was because the released recordings were illegal and not because of what Sterling said in the recordings?</quote> Yes. If I break into your computer and expose things that cause your family, friends, and co-workers to get angry with you, do you think it's fair that you're the one penalized for that?</quote> what's that saying that the republicans use every time they strip away our privacy a little more? "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:52:58 PM #38:	The Admiral posted... Yes That doesn't make any sense at all. The uproar from players, other owners, sponsors, etc. was clearly and without a doubt happening because of what Sterling said in the recordings and not because the recordings were illegal. The outrage was specifically in response to Sterling's racism, not in response to the legality of the recording. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in that makes you think players were refusing to play for him because they were questioning the legality of the recording? --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891275718] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Yes</quote> That doesn't make any sense at all. The uproar from players, other owners, sponsors, etc. was clearly and without a doubt happening because of what Sterling said in the recordings and not because the recordings were illegal. The outrage was specifically in response to Sterling's racism, not in response to the legality of the recording. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in that makes you think players were refusing to play for him because they were questioning the legality of the recording?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
eston 11/29/17 1:57:20 PM #39:	As I said earlier, once private speech becomes public it is no longer private. Just because the recording was illegal doesn't mean the public, the players, or the NBA should be expected to disregard all the racist shit he said. It's out there. They've all heard it coming out of his mouth. --- http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i215/estonc/grizzly_bear_chairs_2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8kjZU.jpg <cite>eston posted [p:891275963] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>As I said earlier, once private speech becomes public it is no longer private. Just because the recording was illegal doesn't mean the public, the players, or the NBA should be expected to disregard all the racist shit he said. It's out there. They've all heard it coming out of his mouth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 1:58:08 PM #40:	CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... Yes That doesn't make any sense at all. The uproar from players, other owners, sponsors, etc. was clearly and without a doubt happening because of what Sterling said in the recordings and not because the recordings were illegal. The outrage was specifically in response to Sterling's racism, not in response to the legality of the recording. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in that makes you think players were refusing to play for him because they were questioning the legality of the recording? The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891276010] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Yes</quote> That doesn't make any sense at all. The uproar from players, other owners, sponsors, etc. was clearly and without a doubt happening because of what Sterling said in the recordings and not because the recordings were illegal. The outrage was specifically in response to Sterling's racism, not in response to the legality of the recording. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in that makes you think players were refusing to play for him because they were questioning the legality of the recording?</quote> The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:58:31 PM #41:	eston posted... As I said earlier, once private speech becomes public it is no longer private. Just because the recording was illegal doesn't mean the public, the players, or the NBA should be expected to disregard all the racist shit he said. It's out there. They've all heard it coming out of his mouth. Exactly, and the rules of the NBA constitution are the only things needed to force Sterling out in that situation. Sure, Sterling can sue, but he wouldn't really have a leg to stand on since the legality of the recording doesn't matter. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891276036] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>eston posted...</cite> <quote>As I said earlier, once private speech becomes public it is no longer private. Just because the recording was illegal doesn't mean the public, the players, or the NBA should be expected to disregard all the racist shit he said. It's out there. They've all heard it coming out of his mouth.</quote> Exactly, and the rules of the NBA constitution are the only things needed to force Sterling out in that situation. Sure, Sterling can sue, but he wouldn't really have a leg to stand on since the legality of the recording doesn't matter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheVipaGTS 11/29/17 1:59:09 PM #42:	Yes. The NBA is an organization that didnt want someone like him representing them. Sterling has no one to blame but himself. --- Dallas Cowboys: 1 - 1 <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:891276078] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>Yes. The NBA is an organization that didnt want someone like him representing them. Sterling has no one to blame but himself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 1:59:57 PM #43:	The Admiral posted... The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891276118] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. </quote> The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 2:02:24 PM #44:	CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling. It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team. Sterling was probably the most litigious owner in the league. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891276240] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. </quote> The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling.</quote> It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team. Sterling was probably the most litigious owner in the league.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 2:04:23 PM #45:	The Admiral posted... It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team. Even if courts ruled the recording illegal, it would have had no bearing on whether or not the other owners could force him out. Sterling admitted it was him in the recordings, so he wouldn't have much of a case to keep the team if the other owners voted him out. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891276359] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team.</quote> Even if courts ruled the recording illegal, it would have had no bearing on whether or not the other owners could force him out. Sterling admitted it was him in the recordings, so he wouldn't have much of a case to keep the team if the other owners voted him out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 11/29/17 2:04:48 PM #46:	The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling. It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team. Sterling was probably the most litigious owner in the league. I don't think you actually understand how contract law works. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:891276386] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. </quote> The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling.</quote> It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team. Sterling was probably the most litigious owner in the league.</quote> I don't think you actually understand how contract law works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheVipaGTS 11/29/17 2:06:19 PM #47:	The legality of the recording isnt between Sterling and The NBA. His comments got out, they made the league look bad and affected several players. The other owners and Silver are within their rights to ban him and encourage the sale of the team. And thats what happened. Not sure what Admiral is even trying to argue here. --- Dallas Cowboys: 1 - 1 <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:891276467] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>The legality of the recording isnt between Sterling and The NBA. His comments got out, they made the league look bad and affected several players. The other owners and Silver are within their rights to ban him and encourage the sale of the team. And thats what happened. Not sure what Admiral is even trying to argue here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/29/17 2:07:40 PM #48:	TheVipaGTS posted... The legality of the recording isnt between Sterling and The NBA. His comments got out, they made the league look bad and affected several players. The other owners and Silver are within their rights to ban him and encourage the sale of the team. And thats what happened. Not sure what Admiral is even trying to argue here. Exactly. He would have a very strong case taking the woman who illegally recorded him to court, but that doesn't have anything to do with the NBA and whether or not they can force him out as a result of his remarks on those recordings. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891276545] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheVipaGTS posted...</cite> <quote>The legality of the recording isnt between Sterling and The NBA. His comments got out, they made the league look bad and affected several players. The other owners and Silver are within their rights to ban him and encourage the sale of the team. And thats what happened. Not sure what Admiral is even trying to argue here.</quote> Exactly. He would have a very strong case taking the woman who illegally recorded him to court, but that doesn't have anything to do with the NBA and whether or not they can force him out as a result of his remarks on those recordings.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 11/29/17 2:09:03 PM #49:	ChromaticAngel posted... The Admiral posted... CableZL posted... The Admiral posted... The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling. It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team. Sterling was probably the most litigious owner in the league. I don't think you actually understand how contract law works. I am certain you don't. Sterling didn't do anything to violate a contract. Having to go to court with this was a nightmare scenario for the league, and they knew it. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:891276619] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>The bizarro world where you ignored the example I gave you explaining it. </quote> The example you gave doesn't matter. Players, owners, sponsors, etc. specifically mentioned Sterling's racism displayed in the recordings as the reason for their outrage. The legality of the recording wasn't a factor in why they were angry at Sterling.</quote> It certainly factors in to being able to seize assets from Sterling against his will. There is the language in the NBA ownership charter, and then there is the real world where the court system exists and would have to adjudicate that. This is why you're kidding yourself if you think this would not still be in litigation if there wasn't a ridiculous offer on the table for the team. Sterling was probably the most litigious owner in the league.</quote> I don't think you actually understand how contract law works.</quote> I am certain you don't. Sterling didn't do anything to violate a contract. Having to go to court with this was a nightmare scenario for the league, and they knew it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Intro2Logic 11/29/17 2:09:51 PM #50:	It's perfectly reasonable to ask fans and players alike to simply memory-hole Sterling's comments and not let them influence how they view him. --- Have you tried thinking rationally? <cite>Intro2Logic posted [p:891276673] in Nearly 4 y... [t:76043561]...</cite> <quote>It's perfectly reasonable to ask fans and players alike to simply memory-hole Sterling's comments and not let them influence how they view him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Nearly 4 years later, was it fair Donald Sterling lost his ownership? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Nearly 4 years later, was it fair Donald Sterling lost his ownership?